Bit of a Con Really - Follow-up ...

A

Arfa Daily

Guest
Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good. Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of, claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa
 
I was not impressed with the Samsung "LED" set I saw at Fry's, either. It
looked as if it had been set to "Torch" mode. What it would look like set
for a normal-to-dimly lit room is anyone's guess.
 
Mr. Mendelson has little understanding of how digital television works.
Rather than refute his points, I will urge him to find a book on the subject
and read it.
 
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh1crhp.7rc.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Click to expand...
Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good. Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of, claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa


Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are
that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and
vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.
Click to expand...
Yes Geoff, I'm aware of all that. I work with the technology all the time.
Did you read the original thread from last week ? We were not discussing the
differences between transport and encoding systems, rather the moral - if
not technical - validity of Sammy advertising this new offering of theirs as
a "LED TV", which it isn't. It's an LCD TV with an alternate form of
backlighting (LEDs rather than CCFL).

One of the main selling points that they claim, is that because they can
control the intensity of the backlighting in individual areas, they can
deepen the blacks, effectively improving the contrast ratio. On the example
that I saw last night, I observed no such improvement that was obvious,
compared to the sets around it. The reason that I questioned what controls
for picture setup are available on this particular set, was that given that
the backlighting is formed by RGB LED arrays, not white LEDs, then the
overall colour temperature would in theory be adjustable - sort of a grey
scale adjustment for LCDs, if you like. If this was the case, it might be
accessible to the customer via the standard controls menu, as something like
"tint" or "hue", and the reason that this particular set (they only had the
one on display) did not seem to produce good flesh tones compared to the
sets around it, might be because some sales erk had been playing with the
controls to see if he could 'improve' it ...

Someone - maybe William - commented last week in the original thread, that
they had seen one in Fry's in the U.S., and that they weren't especially
impressed, either.

Arfa
 
Arfa Daily wrote:

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.
Click to expand...
Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
 
On Fri, 22 May 2009 09:51:44 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:

Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good. Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of, claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa
Click to expand...
I've seen them too. The digital color vibrance was a bit more than the
CFL backlit sets but that could be just a user setting. I wasn't
impressed and would suggest that unless you really need the pretty
looking slim thing to wait a generation or so as the SS backlighting
improves.
 
meow2222@care2.com wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh1crhp.7rc.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:

Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good. Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of, claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa


Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are
that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and
vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.

Yes Geoff, I'm aware of all that. I work with the technology all the time.
Did you read the original thread from last week ? We were not discussing the
differences between transport and encoding systems, rather the moral - if
not technical - validity of Sammy advertising this new offering of theirs as
a "LED TV", which it isn't. It's an LCD TV with an alternate form of
backlighting (LEDs rather than CCFL).

One of the main selling points that they claim, is that because they can
control the intensity of the backlighting in individual areas, they can
deepen the blacks, effectively improving the contrast ratio. On the example
that I saw last night, I observed no such improvement that was obvious,
compared to the sets around it. The reason that I questioned what controls
for picture setup are available on this particular set, was that given that
the backlighting is formed by RGB LED arrays, not white LEDs, then the
overall colour temperature would in theory be adjustable - sort of a grey
scale adjustment for LCDs, if you like. If this was the case, it might be
accessible to the customer via the standard controls menu, as something like
"tint" or "hue", and the reason that this particular set (they only had the
one on display) did not seem to produce good flesh tones compared to the
sets around it, might be because some sales erk had been playing with the
controls to see if he could 'improve' it ...

Someone - maybe William - commented last week in the original thread, that
they had seen one in Fry's in the U.S., and that they weren't especially
impressed, either.

Arfa

surely the flesh tones are entirely down to the colour settings, ie
background, drive, or hue, colour temp etc. Any 3 channel display
except early LCDs can do a palette including all the usual skin tones.

You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
Click to expand...
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..

NT
Click to expand...
 
<meow2222@care2.com> wrote in message
news:57e4325a-b8ac-46d4-abbe-82dea1edec7e@m17g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh1crhp.7rc.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:


Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my
opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good
test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good.
Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and
florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of,
claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness,
contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which
is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I
accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the
display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far
outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa



Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that
are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether
or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is
still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are
that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a
syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there
is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and
vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.


Yes Geoff, I'm aware of all that. I work with the technology all the
time.
Did you read the original thread from last week ? We were not discussing
the
differences between transport and encoding systems, rather the moral - if
not technical - validity of Sammy advertising this new offering of theirs
as
a "LED TV", which it isn't. It's an LCD TV with an alternate form of
backlighting (LEDs rather than CCFL).

One of the main selling points that they claim, is that because they can
control the intensity of the backlighting in individual areas, they can
deepen the blacks, effectively improving the contrast ratio. On the
example
that I saw last night, I observed no such improvement that was obvious,
compared to the sets around it. The reason that I questioned what
controls
for picture setup are available on this particular set, was that given
that
the backlighting is formed by RGB LED arrays, not white LEDs, then the
overall colour temperature would in theory be adjustable - sort of a grey
scale adjustment for LCDs, if you like. If this was the case, it might be
accessible to the customer via the standard controls menu, as something
like
"tint" or "hue", and the reason that this particular set (they only had
the
one on display) did not seem to produce good flesh tones compared to the
sets around it, might be because some sales erk had been playing with the
controls to see if he could 'improve' it ...

Someone - maybe William - commented last week in the original thread,
that
they had seen one in Fry's in the U.S., and that they weren't especially
impressed, either.

Arfa

surely the flesh tones are entirely down to the colour settings, ie
background, drive, or hue, colour temp etc. Any 3 channel display
except early LCDs can do a palette including all the usual skin tones.


NT
Click to expand...
The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour. White
LEDs aren't quite there yet are they?

Archie
 
"Archie" <archie@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EOzRl.75401$iK7.25229@newsfe08.ams2...
meow2222@care2.com> wrote in message
news:57e4325a-b8ac-46d4-abbe-82dea1edec7e@m17g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh1crhp.7rc.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:


Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my
opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good
test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good.
Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and
florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than
on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of,
claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness,
contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which
is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I
accept
Click to expand...

P'raps it needs degausing - or the convergence tweaking!

Ahh - my old Dynatron with 27 pots on a hinged panel to play with.
NT

The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour.
White LEDs aren't quite there yet are they?

Archie
Click to expand...
 
You would think so really, but going back to film photography,
there are reasons why portraits were always shot on eg, Konica,
landscapes on Agfa or Fuji, and no one used Kodak at all
professionally -- except for Kodachrome.
Click to expand...
No one? Kodak sold -- and still sells -- professional color-negative film
that's often used for wedding photography. In fact, GYF recently introduced
an ultra-fine-grain professional color-negative film. If there weren't a
market for it...

I should tell you that, when I use color-negative film, it's Fuji. Part of
the reason is price, the other is that Costco uses Fuji paper. Fuji on Fuji
produces better results than Kodak on Fuji. (The opposite is also true.)
 
The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour.
Click to expand...
Not so. All you have to do is hit the defined points in CIE diagram. The
Pioneer plasma sets hit them dead-on.
 
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh1crhp.7rc.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:


Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good. Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of, claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa



Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are
that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and
vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.


Yes Geoff, I'm aware of all that. I work with the technology all the time.
Did you read the original thread from last week ? We were not discussing the
differences between transport and encoding systems, rather the moral - if
not technical - validity of Sammy advertising this new offering of theirs as
a "LED TV", which it isn't. It's an LCD TV with an alternate form of
backlighting (LEDs rather than CCFL).

One of the main selling points that they claim, is that because they can
control the intensity of the backlighting in individual areas, they can
deepen the blacks, effectively improving the contrast ratio. On the example
that I saw last night, I observed no such improvement that was obvious,
compared to the sets around it. The reason that I questioned what controls
for picture setup are available on this particular set, was that given that
the backlighting is formed by RGB LED arrays, not white LEDs, then the
overall colour temperature would in theory be adjustable - sort of a grey
scale adjustment for LCDs, if you like. If this was the case, it might be
accessible to the customer via the standard controls menu, as something like
"tint" or "hue", and the reason that this particular set (they only had the
one on display) did not seem to produce good flesh tones compared to the
sets around it, might be because some sales erk had been playing with the
controls to see if he could 'improve' it ...

Someone - maybe William - commented last week in the original thread, that
they had seen one in Fry's in the U.S., and that they weren't especially
impressed, either.

Arfa
Click to expand...
surely the flesh tones are entirely down to the colour settings, ie
background, drive, or hue, colour temp etc. Any 3 channel display
except early LCDs can do a palette including all the usual skin tones.


NT
 
meow2222@care2.com wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..

NT

Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.

well in the sense that they all use combinations of RGB (or CYMK) to
Click to expand...
produce a 'full colour spectrum'and none succeed perfectly for all
applications, they are considerably identical, actually.

NT
Click to expand...
 
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gv6ovn$f8n$1@news.albasani.net...
meow2222@care2.com wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..

NT

Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.

well in the sense that they all use combinations of RGB (or CYMK) to
produce a 'full colour spectrum'and none succeed perfectly for all
applications, they are considerably identical, actually.

No, they aren't.
Click to expand...

Very basically, you have to understand that:

A printed image is sending reflected light to your eye. It can only reflect
some portion of the spectrum of light it has absorbed.

A screen is is sending transmitted light to your eye, which has no
reflective element to speak of.

Put even more simply, a printed image varies dramatically under different
lighting conditions, unlike a screen.

They could hardly be less identical and the analogy with different brands of
film is not applicable at all.

HTH
 
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
meow2222@care2.com wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh1crhp.7rc.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:

Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good. Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of, claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa


Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are
that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and
vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.

Yes Geoff, I'm aware of all that. I work with the technology all the time.
Did you read the original thread from last week ? We were not discussing the
differences between transport and encoding systems, rather the moral - if
not technical - validity of Sammy advertising this new offering of theirs as
a "LED TV", which it isn't. It's an LCD TV with an alternate form of
backlighting (LEDs rather than CCFL).

One of the main selling points that they claim, is that because they can
control the intensity of the backlighting in individual areas, they can
deepen the blacks, effectively improving the contrast ratio. On the example
that I saw last night, I observed no such improvement that was obvious,
compared to the sets around it. The reason that I questioned what controls
for picture setup are available on this particular set, was that given that
the backlighting is formed by RGB LED arrays, not white LEDs, then the
overall colour temperature would in theory be adjustable - sort of a grey
scale adjustment for LCDs, if you like. If this was the case, it might be
accessible to the customer via the standard controls menu, as something like
"tint" or "hue", and the reason that this particular set (they only had the
one on display) did not seem to produce good flesh tones compared to the
sets around it, might be because some sales erk had been playing with the
controls to see if he could 'improve' it ...

Someone - maybe William - commented last week in the original thread, that
they had seen one in Fry's in the U.S., and that they weren't especially
impressed, either.

Arfa

surely the flesh tones are entirely down to the colour settings, ie
background, drive, or hue, colour temp etc. Any 3 channel display
except early LCDs can do a palette including all the usual skin tones.

You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..


NT
Click to expand...
Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.


NT
 
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour.

Not so. All you have to do is hit the defined points in CIE diagram. The
Pioneer plasma sets hit them dead-on.
Click to expand...
Indeed. None of the major display techologies deliver full spectrum,
nor do they need to.


NT
 
John wrote:
"Archie" <archie@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EOzRl.75401$iK7.25229@newsfe08.ams2...
meow2222@care2.com> wrote in message
news:57e4325a-b8ac-46d4-abbe-82dea1edec7e@m17g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh1crhp.7rc.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:

Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my
opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good
test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good.
Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and
florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than
on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of,
claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness,
contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which
is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I
accept


P'raps it needs degausing - or the convergence tweaking!

Ahh - my old Dynatron with 27 pots on a hinged panel to play with.
Click to expand...
thats one thing I DON'T miss. I thanked god for inline guns.


NT
 
P'raps it needs degausing - or the convergence tweaking!

Ahh - my old Dynatron with 27 pots on a hinged panel to play with.

thats one thing I DON'T miss. I thanked god for inline guns.


NT
Click to expand...
One day we will be like the aliens in the classic Cadburys Smash adverts -
"So you fired electrons at phosphor dots and steered them with coils of
copper wire!!!"

But at least I could understand how it worked (a bit)
 
Schrodinger's cat wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gv6ovn$f8n$1@news.albasani.net...
meow2222@care2.com wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there
are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except
for
Kodachrome..

NT

Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.

well in the sense that they all use combinations of RGB (or CYMK) to
produce a 'full colour spectrum'and none succeed perfectly for all
applications, they are considerably identical, actually.

No, they aren't.

Very basically, you have to understand that:

A printed image is sending reflected light to your eye. It can only
reflect some portion of the spectrum of light it has absorbed.

Color transparencies which are used in pro film applications say your
Click to expand...
are a liar.

A screen is is sending transmitted light to your eye, which has no
reflective element to speak of.

Put even more simply, a printed image varies dramatically under
different lighting conditions, unlike a screen.

They could hardly be less identical and the analogy with different
brands of film is not applicable at all.

HTH
Click to expand...
 
meow2222@care2.com wrote:
Schrodinger's cat wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gv6ovn$f8n$1@news.albasani.net...
meow2222@care2.com wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..

NT
Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.

well in the sense that they all use combinations of RGB (or CYMK) to
produce a 'full colour spectrum'and none succeed perfectly for all
applications, they are considerably identical, actually.

No, they aren't.

Very basically, you have to understand that:

A printed image is sending reflected light to your eye. It can only reflect
some portion of the spectrum of light it has absorbed.

A screen is is sending transmitted light to your eye, which has no
reflective element to speak of.

Put even more simply, a printed image varies dramatically under different
lighting conditions, unlike a screen.

They could hardly be less identical and the analogy with different brands of
film is not applicable at all.

HTH

issues very different.
Proof by assertion.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top