Flat Screen tv: ready for prime time?

[CSaanich]

After spending many hours reading through the different forums that discuss the various merits of flat screens I thought there might just be a chance that I could find one to actually want to take home.

So armed with the info I found, it was off to the local electronic shops such as Futureshop, Bestbuy, Sears, Costco, some small av specialized shops ..and even The Brick here in Canada.

The result after spending those many more hours comparing brands and models?..

Well, my conclusion is that no matter how primed this customer is for wanting that new flat panel tv hanging over his fireplace there just ain't anything on the market yet that is truly ready for prime time.

Many top line plasmas and lcd's come close. But the word "close" tends to mean relevant when talking the big bucks that the stores want these days. For the kinds of moolah the brands are asking, there's gotta be better than just "alright". For instance, Sony and Pioneer are said to be at the pinacle of their respective breeds but what I see are more of comprimise than anything. Not one of them performs to as advertised ..and especially with not so perfect media imput that most folks have at hand. For instance, stuff that's in SD format (even digital) is what is mostly still offered for tv entertainment, and that varies greatly in quality. Every one of those flat sets perform way below my old crt when it comes to SD. As for HD, well that opens up a peculiar Pandora's box of flaws. It seems no one set maker has a handle on all those niggly flaws that seem so apparent in all the big screens I've either seen or read about. What a shame.

On the upside, it can only serve to drive down the prices of the Sony's and Samsung's et al as folks start settling for the only option of mediocrity.

Like others I'll probably just keep monitoring the flat screen scene for now and look for that better value-for-money set that may come along. But I suspect it may be a year or two away.

End of Rant.

[57]

It will never be perfect, however, SD PQ can be very good - read the following:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=18580


It is important to understand many of the nuances. If you wait for perfection, you will miss out on all the good HD (and SD) in the meantime.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=57741


Also, over the fireplace is one of the worst places to put an HDTV since it's usually too high, too warm and a literal pain in the neck.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=72907

[BCScott]

Flat screen tvs are just that, they have a flat screen. Many CRTs in the past 5 years or so have flat screens, verses the older rounded tubes. Plasma and LCD tvs are flat panel tvs. When you enlarge a standard definition picture to the size of even a modest flat panel, say 50" or so, of course it's not going to be as sharp as it is on a good 27" CRT. However, many are very respectable.
HD tvs really come into their own when you view an HD source. There's really no comparison. A good HD source, either broadcast or HD DVD/BluRay on a decent HD tv can be jaw dropping.
In store demos at most venders often don't show these tvs at their best.

[jvincent]

Well, my conclusion is that no matter how primed this customer is for wanting that new flat panel tv hanging over his fireplace there just ain't anything on the market yet that is truly ready for prime time.

That's the first problem. Over the fireplace is one of the worst spots for a flat panel.

I've never seen a set of properly calibrated TVs in any of the stores I've been too which doesn't help either.

Having made the shift from CRT to plasma, I'd never go back. The perfect geometry of the plasma and not requiring to do the convergence on the CRT makes my TV experience so much better. Is the plasma perfect? No, but properly setup it's certainly close enough for me.

[Dog Byte]

Many top line plasmas and lcd's come close. But the word "close" tends to mean relevant when talking the big bucks that the stores want these days. For the kinds of moolah the brands are asking, there's gotta be better than just "alright".

You get what you pay for. Back in 1988 I bought a 27" Sony XBR TV. Price -- $2,000. Matching stand with thumping 10W subwoofer -- $300. Satellite receiver (the 12' dish came with the house) -- $2,000.

Given a good input signal my $1,400 42" plasma is bigger and better than my old TV. A satellite receiver is $100.

So I think price and picture quality is pretty good these days.

[grog]

It also depends on how you're viewing these sets in the store. Calibration (or lack thereof) is definitely a problem but even a properly calibrated set can look like crap under the wrong conditions. What is the store lighting like? Those big bright overhead lights used in a lot of big box stores are definitely not ideal (nor would you have any lighting like that in your home). What are they using for a source? e.g. A cable signal split 50 times is also hardly ideal. Also, how close are you to the set when checking it out? In a store you'll often stand 2-3 feet away from the thing which would reveal all kinds of flaws but that's hardly a fair test since you would normally be at least 8 feet away when using it at home.

If you want to get the true feel for how good or bad a particular set performs you'll need to go to a boutique store with a proper theater room setup. And no, the little theater rooms in stores like Future Shop don't count.

[dbenne00]

It's not very often you (I?) see someone complaining about the state of flat panel TVs! My friend and I tried out an expensive Panasonic plasma and a new Sharp 1080p LCD (sorry, don't remember the models) in my HT room a few months ago. We used HD DVD, DVD and SD cable as the sources, and were not at all impressed with the picture quality.

We were thinking there must be something wrong with us and/or the equipment because EVERYBODY loves HD flat panel TVs, right? But no amount of calibrating or changing cables or sources provided us with a pleasing image to watch. We both agreed that a nice Superbit DVD on my Infocus EDTV projector/96" screen looked more pleasing than the best HD DVD we had on the HD TVs. My PJ was so free of noise and digital 'artifacts' that I would not consider giving it up, plus, the image on both HD TVs just had a weird 'not-real' appearance to it, whereas my PJ was much more natural looking.

I really like the idea of a nice HD flat panel... I could finally get rid of my 30ft cable runs and PJ fan noise, but I'm not willing to sacrifice image quality (IMO) and screen size. Especially considering the amount of money it would cost me to do so!

Maybe one day...

[jvincent]

No offense intended, but you must have been doing something wrong with the calibration.

If you can't get a better image out of an HD plasma compared to an ED projector then something just isn't right.

[dbenne00]

No offense taken. 'Better' is subjective... it was primarily the digital noise and digital motion artifacts that bothered me. Adjusting the various noise reduction options on the TVs resulted in clay-face and added more motion artifacts (ie. pores/stubble on someones face not moving as much as they are moving their whole head).

Certainly my PJ is nowhere near as sharp as the HDTVs, but there is much more to PQ than resolution/sharpness, and I would happily sacrifice some sharpness for a natural, artifact free image.

[rod farva]

i've seen plenty of jawdropping hd on many different types of displays. images so crisp and clear, like you were looking thru a window. if you think sd on an old crt is better then hd, then you need to see an optometrist.

[Phobia]

I think both sides of this argument have valid points. I opted for a compromise when I went HD - I bought a Panasonic CRT widescreen HDTV.

I get the best of both worlds - great SD and great HD.

I completely agree with the poster's findings that LCD and Plasma sets look like crap when you are viewing SD. Luckily more and more prime time programming is going HD, but it will still take more time until this standard really hits its stride.

I absolutely hate the macro-blocking and other digital noise present in fast motion HD sports presentations. I saw it during the world cup, and I see it all the time when watching NFL broadcasts as well. I was in the US over American Thanksgiving, and even the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in HD on my friend's 42" LCD looked terrible when there was any kind of fast motion. (cheerleaders waving their pompoms for example)

I know that people who buy these expensive sets think they need to justify their purchase somehow - I guess mostly to themselves - but you are kidding yourself if you say that SD looks better on a LCD or Plasma HDTV than it does on the previous generation of TV sets.

Obviously good HDTV **can** look fantastic - it can also look like crap. I think that is the gripe here.

-- Phob

[jvincent]

'Better' is subjective... it was primarily the digital noise and digital motion artifacts that bothered me. Adjusting the various noise reduction options on the TVs resulted in clay-face and added more motion artifacts (ie. pores/stubble on someones face not moving as much as they are moving their whole head).

I agree 100% better is indeed subjective.

LCDs, especially the non-120Hz ones, are noted for smearing and ghosting, which is why I've always avoided them.

Now let's talk plasma, which I am very well versed in.
Personally I have never been a big fan of extra digital processing (noise reduction, etc) that a lot of manufacturers put into their sets. As you point it, they usually do more harm than good.

Clay face is usually an indication that the set isn't properly calibrated. I've been a hobbyist calibrationist for a long time now and finally purchased a colorimeter last year so that I could use some instrumentation to improve what could be done with Avia and filters.

I was amazed at how much of a difference an instrument driven calibration can make. Plasmas in particular can be finicky beasts and are prone to introducing colour banding in a greyscale if not done right. It's much more that just setting brightness and contrast so they look right.

I've spent way too many hours (ask the wife) getting the colours and greyscale on my TV as close to the reference standard as my meter can measure. It's been a learning process both in terms of what the TV can do as well as what the readings mean.

In the end though, it's worth it. The resulting picture is to die for.

[I_Want_My_HDTV]

Compared to my first B/W 19" analog TV (and rabbit ears), just about any Plasma or LCD are to die for. My suggestion is to stop looking for flaws and start enjoying the programming.

[utah]

I'm perfectly happy with my HD TV.

Night after night, I find myself amazed by the images that I'm watching. Sure....I could fret over some of the minor flaws that show up in the picture from time to time. But, I don't.

I get a decent selection of HD channels, and usually more than enough programming variety to keep me entertained.

To each their own of course, but my prime-time HD viewing is more than satisfying to me.

[Walter Dnes]

Originally Posted by Phobia

I absolutely hate the macro-blocking and other digital noise present in fast motion HD sports presentations. I saw it during the world cup, and I see it all the time when watching NFL broadcasts as well.

Strange, I don't see macroblocking on NFL, unles the signal is getting weak. You're probably watching NFL on cable or "Bell CompressVu". Dig my sig

Originally Posted by Phobia

I was in the US over American Thanksgiving, and even the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in HD on my friend's 42" LCD looked terrible when there was any kind of fast motion. (cheerleaders waving their pompoms for example)

Cable and/or a slow LCD.