What are the negatives about purchasing a large LCD set? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

I'd like more info about "deep blacks" and "motion blur".

I am still reacting positively to LCD based on my computer monitor (a Compaq 7550). The films on DVD looked outstanding here, with incredible blacks and no motion problems (of course, the screen is small). And while I'm at it, are we talking the same technology here? I'm thinking of my monitor as LCD. It is, isn't it...?

 

[andrew markworthy]

'Deep black' refers to just what it sounds like - i.e. how absent of light the image is when what's being portrayed is very dark. To some extent this is a subjective thing. I know that my LCD passes the calibration disc tests, and to me a dark black looks the right 'colour' (if you see what I mean). However, others might think it was too light, others that it was too dark. I'd say that provided the calibration figures are okay, then if it's right for you, then it's right.

Motion blur refers to the phenomenon that fast movements can appear unusually blurred. E.g. a football in flight may appear blurred or have a 'ghost' football trailing behind it. Alternatively, someone moving a limb quickly might appear to have a 'ghost' limb following behind. It gets more noticeable on larger screens and when you have a high contrast (e.g. white on black, black on white, etc). This was noticeable on early LCDs (but whether it was annoying depended on the individual - i.e. it wasn't that awful and generlaly you had to be looking for it). On newer ones I've not personally noticed it, though I'm prepared to admit that a badly calibrated set in a store may show it.


Shane, I wouldn't disagree with this if what you're saying is a personal preference. I think for some people the CRT will be subjectively better and I don't think they're 'wrong' to express this view (different strokes and all that). I personally like the aesthetics of the flat screen and I prefer the picture, but it's a marginal thing and overall I think there's little to put between the different formats. All I think the LCD fans are saying is that for them the format can hold its own against the opposition. But I don't think the LCDers are decrying alternative formats.

 

[Shane Martin]

Andrew,
Well said. EVERY Format has compromises but I bet we can all agree that no format is 100% best for everyone though some will say that CRT is the best of the bunch and while I'd agree, it is not perfect for everyone. I know I got more bang for my buck that way but not everyone wants that.
Up until I saw the XBR LCD, I would say that all LCD's I've seen suffer from Grey Blacks. They are not truly black. For my friend, his grey blacks are not a big deal. I guess it depends on your level of compromise and expectations. For me Black is one of the key elements of film. A movie like Dark City was barely watchable on his system due to this. It was called Dark City not Grey City.

 

[Bruce McDermott]

Interesting. I saw a 65" Mits RP CRT in a reasonably bright room right next to a 70" XBR, and was allowed to use the remotes and the user menus (not the service menus) to my heart's content for over 30 minutes.

The Sony's blacks, even in relatively high ambient light, simply could not compare. The colors had lots of punch, but its relative inability to produce accurate blacks and shades of black robbed the picture of depth. It was pretty--very pretty--but it was a flat, pretty picture. The CRT simply had a more "real" look to its image.

I would have loved to see both sets side-by-side after each had gotten truly calibrated.

But from what I saw, I would not select the Sony as a centerpiece display in a dedicated home theater (with good light control) meant primarily for movie watching. I could select it for overall viewing in higher ambient light--I have a home gym, for instance, and it would be a nice set for that purupose (of course $5000+ for a home gym display might be pushing it for other reasons...)