Do the newer LCDs suffer from motion blur?

hilton

hilton

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
198
Location
.
Just trying to decide between full HD LCD and Plasma.

Any input?
 
Not really no, the motion blur was mostly caused by the bad refresh rates, that has improved over the years. LCD is getting close to Plasma in terms of picture quality as well now-a-days.
 
You're going to start a long thread again ;)

But I tend to agree with Lupus. My 1 year old LCD is rated very highly against Plasma
 
Yes, entry and mid range LCDs do still suffer from motion blur!

You have to spend a whole lot extra on an LCD that has 100+hz refresh rate to get the "motion flow" and no blurring. Example Samsung 6 Series and Sony EX600 (IIRC) Series - the higher end models.

Just get a plasma, and you won't ever have to worry about sports and normal TV channels looking cr*ppy.

Plasma is superior to LCD. An entry/mid plasma will even look better than higher end LCDs!
 
OT: It would be really helpful if someone did some Rand tests to determine how much electricity a plasma TV uses.
 
mercurial said:
OT: It would be really helpful if someone did some Rand tests to determine how much electricity a plasma TV uses.
Click to expand...

Off topic but on topic for this off topic. I found a review but can't find a date but by all accounts if it is older then it should have been worse. It seems the power usage difference may be a little exaggerated :

Plasma vs LCD power consumption shootout
By: Sean Carruthers

A look at how LCD and plasma compare for power consumption

If you're on the hunt for a big flat-screen television, but you're worried about how much electricity they're going to suck back, you may be confused as to which technology to look for. The prevailing wisdom is that plasma screens are power-hungry monsters, but that's not necessarily true in all circumstances.

The reason for this is the different ways that plasma and LCD bring the picture to the screen. With a plasma screen, each pixel element is an individual light source that is illuminated as needed. LCD, on the other hand, always has a backlight running, and rather than lighting up pixels, an LCD monitor will BLOCK them, so the light doesn't get through. That means a relatively steady power consumption for LCD screens, while plasma varies wildly depending on what happens to be on the screen at that given moment.

CFH Labs got in two large-screen televisions of roughly the same size, one LCD (40-inch) and one plasma (42-inch), and hooked them up to a pair of Kill A Watt electricity meters. We then tested the power consumption of these monitors under a variety of conditions, including several solid colours (white, black, red, blue and green), TV static, watching a DVD with a lot of white backgrounds (Atanarjuat), and watching a DVD with a lot of black backgrounds (Battlestar Galactica miniseries). We also tested the two screens overnight, tuned to the same station. Both screens used out-of-the-box colour and brightness settings.

As prevailing wisdom suspects, the plasma monitor consumed more energy under all of the different real-world viewing tests, but the Battlestar Galactica test showed the difference narrowing. Under the solid colour testing, the plasma ate up more energy than the LCD screen except when displaying a solid black screen, where the power consumption of the plasma screen plummeted to about a quarter of its usual use. The plasma screen used the most energy showing a screen with TV static on it, because there's a lot of white, and it's rapidly moving.

For part two of the test, we reset the plasma screen to "super savings" energy mode, and then adjusted the brightness of the LCD screen to match.

Kill A Watt
www.p3international.com
$30
The Kill A Watt is designed to show you how much power you're using on any particular outlet, by sitting between the outlet and the item you're plugging into it. The Kill A Watt measures the voltage, amperage, wattage, Hz and kilowatt hours. We used the Kill A Watt to measure the power draw of our large screen televisions, to see which ones were more efficient, using the watts (current power draw) and kilowatt hours (cumulative power draw over time).

Samsung SP-R4212
www.samsung.com
$1,800
Consumption rating: 280 watts
The SP-R4212 is a 42-inch plasma display, and while it's HD-ready, it's only a 480p display (852x480 pixels). That means 1,226,880 individual pixel elements to turn on and off, each of which requires power. Theoretically, that would mean that an all-white screen would consume the most power but is that the case?

Samsung LN-R408D
www.samsung.com
$3,299
Consumption rating: 285 watts
This 40 inch model has a slightly smaller picture than our 42-inch plasma, but it comes with 720p resolution (1366x768).

Samsung plasma:
standby: 1 watt, 0.06 amps
black screen: 65 watts, 0.58 amps
white screen: 256 watts, 2.23 amps
red screen: 232 watts, 2.02 amps
blue screen: 231 watts, 2.13 amps
green screen: 208 watts, 1.80 amps
static: 311 watts, 2.71 amps
Atanarjuat (2 hr 30 min): 0.69 kilowatt hours
Battlestar Galactica (2 hr): 0.49 kilowatt hours
CNN (overnight): 4.3 kilowatt hours

Samsung plasma (super power saver mode):
standby: 1 watt, 0.06 amps
black screen: 65 watts, 0.58 amps
white screen: 203 watts, 1.76 amps
red screen: 191 watts, 1.7 amps
blue screen: 190 watts, 1.67 amps
green screen: 180 watts, 1.56 amps
static: 251 watts, 2.21 amps
Atanarjuat (3 hr): 0.64 kilowatt hours
Battlestar Galactica (3+ hr): 0.67 kilowatt hours
CNN (overnight): 3.97 kilowatt hours

Samsung LCD
standby: 10 watts, 0.17 amps
black screen: 200 watts, 2.55 amps
white screen: 199, 2.58 amps
red screen: 199 watts, 2.57 amps
blue screen: 198 watts, 2.57 amps
green screen: 198 watts, 2.96 amps
static: 264 watts, 3.23 amps
Atanarjuat (2 hr 30 min): 0.57 kilowatt hours
Battlestar Galactica (2 hr): 0.49 kilowatt hours
CNN (overnight): 3.41 kilowatt hours

Samsung LCD (lower-brightness mode)
standby: 10 watts, 0.17 amps
black screen: 196 watts, 2.50 amps
white screen: 195 watts, 2.52 amps
red screen: 196 watts, 2.51 amps
blue screen: 196 watts, 2.52 amps
green screen: 195 watts, 2.51 amps
static: 235 watts, 3.0 amps
Atanarjuat (3 hr): 0.65 kilowatt hours
Battlestar Galactica (3 hr+): 0.72 kilowatt hours
CNN (overnight): 3.84 kilowatt hours
Click to expand...
 
PostmanPot said:
Plasma is superior to LCD. An entry/mid plasma will even look better than higher end LCDs!
Click to expand...

I think we've proved countless times that this statement is incorrect ;)

Some may be superior - marginally.
 
Dolby said:
I think we've proved countless times that this statement is incorrect ;)

Some may be superior - marginally.
Click to expand...

In terms of picture quality - plasma is definitely superior to LCD. I'm pretty sure this is a fact? In terms of things like power usage, heat generated, use in well-lit rooms; as well as other things from the past like screen burn in and shorter life span (which are now a thing of the past), then yes, LCD wins.

Plasma especially creams LCD when it comes to SD & HD TV and sport.
 
For fun, compared my LCD to this more expensvie Panasonic Viera on a site Lancelot actually posted (http://www.televisioninfo.com/conte...Plasma-HDTV-Review-595/Ratings-amp;-Specs.htm)

Black Level 9.11
Peak White 2.81
Contrast Ratio 6.06
Tunnel Contrast 8.90
White Falloff 7.66
Uniformity 8.00
Greyscale Gamma 9.04

The bolded area's are where the LCD is ahead ... that's 4 out of 7.

It scores 656.11 total - also beating the LCD on *hic* button layout, manual and audi quality.

I've tried testing against various plasma and the results are pretty much the same : slightly better in some regards and slightly weaker in others. There's NO land slide victory that I see in terms of picture quality at all. After this, I decided to Google a few reviews of the LCD and came across this http://www.besthdtvscreen.com/tag/samsung-ln-b650-lcd-tvs which says :

Its picture quality is comparable to that of the step-up Samsung LN B750 LCD TV series and Panasonic G10 plasma TV series. Models from Samsung Series 6 (B650) are also on par with the manufacturer’s entry-level LED LCD TV series (UNB6000 and UNB7000). Below, you can find the reviews for LCD TVs that are members of LNB650 series.

Other reviews have this to say about the older B series like mine (http://reviews.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtvreviews/samsung-ln46b650-review.html):

One of the highlight features of the LN46B650 is its picture depth perception. Samsung has been unparalled in this area lately. I believe this is due to the companies Ultra Clear Panel technology which does allow for some glare on the screen but the tradeoff with great depth and rich colors is a winner
Color Rendition/Color Accuracy: Colors are bright, rich and vibrant but not oversaturated. The color rendition of this TV is exceptional.

Black Level/Contrast/Contrast Ratio: Contrast ratio measures a respectable 959:1. We believe contrast is enhanced by the Ultra Clear Panel that Samsung uses for this LCD. Blacks appear rich and there is no lack of brightness
 
Last edited:
Mine is discontinued - replaced with thet Samsung C650.

But now we're bringing price in it? Earlier it was the plasma is superior. Period. A entry/mid level plasma will look better than even high end LCDs which - in my opinion - isn't factual. I also don't quite see the massive, day/night differences that people talk about. 2 yeasr back - but not now ...
 
Dolby said:
Mine is discontinued - replaced with thet Samsung C650.

But now we're bringing price in it? Earlier it was the plasma is superior. Period. A entry/mid level plasma will look better than even high end LCDs which - in my opinion - isn't factual. I also don't quite see the massive, day/night differences that people talk about. 2 yeasr back - but not now ...
Click to expand...

Nope, if you look back at that previous thread you kindly referred to you would see that even then price was factored in. This should be obvious anyway as any consumer wants to get the most value for money. By all accounts you would need to choose two similarly priced units if you wanted to conclude whether plasma or LCD is superior.

One can only assume that when a person says they are trying to decide between a plasma and an LCD that they would be similarly priced. The question was also specifically about motion blur!
 
OP, share the models you are looking at and see if we can draw a more accurate conclusion.

I will add, however, that motion blur is not something I have ever heard mentioned when it comes to plasmas......
 
I think they do. I had a V400 Sony and it was perfect! Then Sony launched their first Motionflow LCD, the W series.
I was forced to exchange my V400 to the newer V550 and there is a noticeable difference in quality. Sony said I'm imagining things and that the V550 with Bravia engine 3 is better the Bravia engine 2 in the V400...

IMO the older V400 is better than the newer V550!
 
So going to the earlier statement that entry level plasmas are better than high end LCDs ... Myth busted? ;)
 
Dolby said:
So going to the earlier statement that entry level plasmas are better than high end LCDs ... Myth busted? ;)
Click to expand...

If you would like to get truly argumentative about this then no it is not busted as it is true! This thread is about motion blur. Now I ain't no expert but my understanding is that this is linked to a screen "refresh rate".

As video editor Geoff Morrison's piece explains, part of the blur perception comes from the fact that, on standard LCDs, frames are frozen on the screen for 1/60th of a second, and then abruptly shift to the next frame. This is called "sample and hold." Other technologies like plasma and DLP don't hold the frame for that whole 1/60th of a second, but pulse from one frame to the next, with some healthy downtime.
Click to expand...

Myth proven as even low end plasmas are better than high end LCDs when it comes to motion blur. Although it appears to only be a myth for you and common knowledge to the rest of us.

Some more :

Virtually all modern LCD displays are based on driving magnesium called Active Matrix. Active Matrix works by ‘holding’ each frame for a certain period of time before displaying the next. For example, a standard Active-Matrix LCD ‘holds’ each frame for 16.6ms at 60Hz before displaying the next frame, but this leads to retinal persistence. In other words, the image becomes temporarily ‘burned’ in the eye’s retina. If it’s not removed, it will cause blur like effect during motion, (when the ghostly image of the previous frame overlaps with the new frame). To help combat this problem, several manufactures have implemented a picture processing technique known as 100/120Hz (Motion Compensation), which helps to reduce motion blur effectively on (virtually) all modern LCDs. It works by synthesizing new frames from existing frames to reduce hold time by half.

Another method called “Overdrive V2” was recently proposed by a Chinese LCD manufacturing company called Chi-Mei Optronics. The new technology works by slightly dimming the image just before displaying the next. This idea was actually conceived from the old CRT technology. It’s surprising to see how advanced CRT technology really was (and still is). Below the front glass of the CRT lies the phosphor coating. When it’s hit by the electron beam, it becomes ‘excited’ and emits light. The phosphor will continue to emit light for about 1-1.6 milliseconds before it begins to fade, which causes slight flicker but at the same time, it helps to remove the previous image from the eye’s retina. Now you know why there’s no motion blur on your old boob tubes LOL.


PDPs don’t have such problem, because hold time on PDPs is controlled by Pulse Width Modulation (4-6ms). In other words, PWM creates each frame from scrach.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dolby said:
So going to the earlier statement that entry level plasmas are better than high end LCDs ... Myth busted? ;)
Click to expand...

Look, some high end LCDs, at 2 - 3 - 4 times the price, may look better than entry level plasmas. I didn't say all high end LCDs. :p Generally though, you walk into a Game/Makro/Hifi Corp and you compare cheaper plasma to more expensive LCD and the difference is clear as daylight! :confused:

My points are that:

Plasma is a superior image technology to LCD
Plasma is cheaper for better image quality
Plasma provides the consumer with far better value for money, even when comparing high end plasma vs high end LCD (apples vs apples)
Plasma is superior for sport and anything fast motion, as well as SD TV.

What you say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X