Flatscreen : white levels

Dolby

Dolby

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
39,122
Reaction score
6,138
I'm told I'm wrong - so just wondering if any guys with both screens (or had both) can confirm that one is whiter and brighter than the other?

My eyes see it - and every test shows it - and logic dictates it ... but hoping another could shed some light?
 
Highly unnecessary thread. Post a link to prove this, as I've asked several times before. It's as simple as that and does not require a new thread. ;)

More importantly, post links to show how bright whites are as important as deep blacks, or how a plasma's picture is affected (or dis-affected) by these supposed dimmer whites. That is what is relevant to end users.

Btw, would "widescreen" not have been more accurate?
 
No - a new thread is needed.

The other is derailing - and I'm actually interested in learning more about either technology.

So I'd prefer others to come with their observations.

No - you get widescreen CRT too ... flatscreen plasma and LCD/LED and plasma
 
Dolby said:
No - a new thread is needed.

The other is derailing - and I'm actually interested in learning more about either technology.

So I'd prefer others to come with their observations.
Click to expand...

Ah, still no links, or proof as to why the brightest whites are relevant to end users who have ambiently-lit rooms and not pitch-black rooms.

No - you get widescreen CRT too ... flatscreen plasma and LCD/LED and plasma
Click to expand...

But you get more flatscreen CRTs than you do widescreen CRTs. ;)
 
Postman ... firstly, I can see it myself.

Having had both technologies, using my own money to purchase, comparing both and being an enthusiast should count for something. Pretty much the same argument when it comes to other aspects : I've had about 40 different combinations of home theater appliances in the last 10 years ranging from small to large and budget to expensive.

Personal experience should count for something - and I have no reason to choose one over the other at all.

However - you're more than welcome to check out this :

http://www.televisioninfo.com/

A few comments from the above mentioned site regarding white levels :

The Samsung UN46C530 managed an incredibly bright white, when called upon. In the chart below, you can see that it easily surpassed the two LCD TVs. The Samsung PN50C550 was never expected to produce a particularly bright white, as it's a plasma.

The Samsung PN50A760 produced deep blacks, although it's whites could have been brighter, a not uncommon problem for plasma displays.

We measured the maximum brightness that the KDL52XBR9 could manage at an eye-watering 440.47 cd/m2, which is extremely bright. In fact, it's the brightest we've seen from any TV since we started testing, beating out the previous record holder (the Samsung LN46B750) by a significant margin

The LG 55LE5400 produced a very bright white, brighter than any of the TVs in the comparison pool. The 60PK750 was the worst, by far, but it's a plasma display.

The Panasonic TC-P42GT25, like many plasmas, had some troubles producing a bright enough screen. The issue is that plasma screens get hot, and a big, white screen requires more power output than any other color. In order to keep from getting dangerously hot, as the white content increases in screen size, the overall brightness is reduced. You probably won't notice a problem unless you put it right next to an LCD screen (in which case, you can really see a difference and might lose heart).

The Samsung PN50C550 managed a decent peak brightness, at least for a plasma TV. As you can see in the chart below, the LG, Panasonic, and Samsung are all plasma TVs, and the Samsung is the brightest by far. Of course, an LCD like the Sony 52EX700, clobbers them all.
 
LCD is definitely whiter and brigther than plasma, yes.

... But, even in my brightly lit room I find myself callibrating my LCD's white levels far below what my plasmas are capable of delivering, so it really does not matter for me. Black level still remains the important factor, not white levels or dynamic or static contrast. The Samsung Series 6 and 7 LCD's, however, do have brilliant black levels IMO, getting close enough to KURO levels and way way way better than my cheaper plasma.
 
... keep in mind that I bought an LCD over my current plasma only 15 months ago.

... I then went with my parents 3 weeks ago to purchase - and again compared

... and again yesterday at Digital Experience to compare what they had

I promise you that is a known fact that LCD has whiter whites. This - by the way - does make a huge difference in scenes!

Contrast ratio in general does have a plams screen ahead due to the blacks being deeper. But there are LCDs with a deeper or equal black level meaning that the ratio is higher due to the whiter white
 
So LCDs generally are brighter than plasmas, which is why LCDs sometimes appear better in brightly-lit shops (unlike curtained/blinded home TV rooms).

Now, more importantly, post links to show how bright whites are as important as deep blacks, or how a plasma's picture is affected (or dis-affected) by these supposed dimmer whites. That, is what is relevant to end users.

Unless you're just harping on about something with little relevance?
 
TYR said:
LCD is definitely whiter and brigther than plasma, yes.

... But, even in my brightly lit room I find myself callibrating my LCD's white levels far below what my plasmas are capable of delivering, so it really does not matter for me. Black level still remains the important factor, not white levels or dynamic or static contrast. The Samsung Series 6 and 7 LCD's, however, do have brilliant black levels IMO, getting close enough to KURO levels and way way way better than my cheaper plasma.
Click to expand...

TYR for President!
 
... But ok, LCD's are just better for bright stuff ... ALL plasmas buzz a little bit when they need to display a full white screen at high brightness.
 
PP - unless you're a total idiot ... can you not see where a white would be important?

An early morning scene?
A hospital room?
Anything really?

Basically because of the different technologies, an LCD is white at idle and a plasma black at idle. Each needs to work to get the other side of the spectrum ...
 
Last edited:
Dolby said:
I promise you that is a known fact that LCD has whiter whites. This - by the way - does make a huge difference in scenes!
Click to expand...

It's really not a big deal, as explained in technical articles about how dynamic contrast ratios are BS.

In line with my previous post, please elaborate on how brighter whites make a "huge difference" in scenes. The tech sites aren't mentioning this? :confused:
 
Dolby said:
PP - unless you're a total idiot ... can you not see where a white would be important?

An early morning scene?
A hospital room?
Anything really?

Basically because of the different technologies, an LCD is white at idle and a plasma black at idle. Each needs to work to get the other side of the spectrum ...
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't understand.

White is white. Brightness does not make it more white.

Grey-black is not black.

;)
 
Dolby said:
I think we are getting somewhere!

So now - with Series 6 and 7 being as deep as a plasma, but with whiter white .... what do you think that means?
Click to expand...

Since when are Series 6/7's blacks as deep as plasma? Please quote from TYR's post.

I think it means that plasmas at half the price offer exceptional value for money. Then, plasmas and LCDs at the mid range are very similar, with plasmas still winning at black levels, which still gives plasma a superior overall image, since brighter-whites-than-what-plasmas-produce (i.e. dynamic contrast) are not important in terms of picture quality. And finally, at the upper end of the market, plasma still wins at overall quality, even though LCDs may be brighter (which again proves how dynamic contrast is meaningless, unless you have a really bright room without curtains).
 
... what would happen in a test of the Sony Bravia KDL-52XBR9 where things are said ...

We measured the black level of the KDL52XBR9 at 0.05 cd/m2, which means that the blacks on the screen are extremely deep and dark. This is also the lowest black level that we've ever seen, so this display would produce the deepest, darkest blacks of any HDTV that we've tested.

We measured the maximum brightness that the KDL52XBR9 could manage at an eye-watering 440.47 cd/m2, which is extremely bright. In fact, it's the brightest we've seen from any TV since we started testing, beating out the previous record holder (the Samsung LN46B750) by a significant margin. This is important because the brighter the image, the better it will hold up in direct sunlight or a brightly-lit office. This HDTV should have no problems producing a visible image in pretty much any set of conditions.
We measured the black level of the KDL52XBR9 at 0.05 cd/m2, which means that the blacks on the screen are extremely deep and dark. This is also the lowest black level that we've ever seen, so this display would produce the deepest, darkest blacks of any HDTV that we've tested.

Do we just ignore it?

Let me know and I'll delete the post before others see it :/
 
Yeah, those okes just don't really test every panel that comes out. They never got their hands on any Pioneer. KURO gave 0.01. ... But yes, the XBR9 is very good, especially since it is an edge lit LED (was a recession thing iirc, to lower costs). The XBR8 was actually their "legend" panel, with even lower black levels than the 9, that one was full matrix backlit LED, but those local dimming LED's have other problems, and IMO traditional ccfl or edge led is getting good enough for them to just let go of the local dimming idea.
 
Dolby said:
... what would happen in a test of the Sony Bravia KDL-52XBR9 where things are said ...

We measured the black level of the KDL52XBR9 at 0.05 cd/m2, which means that the blacks on the screen are extremely deep and dark. This is also the lowest black level that we've ever seen, so this display would produce the deepest, darkest blacks of any HDTV that we've tested.

We measured the maximum brightness that the KDL52XBR9 could manage at an eye-watering 440.47 cd/m2, which is extremely bright. In fact, it's the brightest we've seen from any TV since we started testing, beating out the previous record holder (the Samsung LN46B750) by a significant margin. This is important because the brighter the image, the better it will hold up in direct sunlight or a brightly-lit office. This HDTV should have no problems producing a visible image in pretty much any set of conditions.
We measured the black level of the KDL52XBR9 at 0.05 cd/m2, which means that the blacks on the screen are extremely deep and dark. This is also the lowest black level that we've ever seen, so this display would produce the deepest, darkest blacks of any HDTV that we've tested.

Do we just ignore it?

Let me know and I'll delete the post before others see it :/
Click to expand...

So, because TelevisionInfo (a site that has been criticised for being pro-LCD - no wonder you're so obsessed with it) says the Sony Bravia KDL-52XBR9 has the lowest black level of any HDTV they've ever seen, this means that the Sony Bravia KDL-52XBR9 has the deepest black level of any HDTV on the market? So, basically, this LCD has deeper blacks than any plasma?

I just want to get that clear, before I go and do my research. ;)
 
TYR said:
Yeah, those okes just don't really test every panel that comes out. They never got their hands on any Pioneer. KURO gave 0.01. ... But yes, the XBR9 is very good, especially since it is an edge lit LED (was a recession thing iirc, to lower costs). The XBR8 was actually their "legend" panel, with even lower black levels than the 9, that one was full matrix backlit LED, but those local dimming LED's have other problems, and IMO traditional ccfl or edge led is getting good enough for them to just let go of the local dimming idea.
Click to expand...

Thanks Prez, you've just done my research for me. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X