Do you remamber that time, of first PC DVD kits ? (1 Viewer)

[Alberto_D]

That's a technical topic, to raise one point that anoys me about LCD introduction.


Despite the HDTV and and 4K technologies, I notice a strange thing in terms of image contrast, about of pleasant feeling of lustrous image, and not thing like contrast ratio itself.

Do you remamber when DVD arrive, got more popular, and the good editions started with new transfer in progressive scans, from good hi end telecine machines, better color correction than the usual TV tapes of movies we were used ?
It looked very nice on good CRT TVs, like sony trinitron flat screen. It was great for the time. But when the first PC DVD kits arrive, using Power DVD, and we noticed that the image on computer CRT monitor did never looked like on TV in terms of contrast. It lloked faded, dark in shadows, and no matter what adjust setting we tried on Power DVD, like contrast, brightness, saturation, the image conrast never looked good like in a CRT TV, cause the brightness adjust made the image whitish (like airbrushed transparent paint over), without density, and the contrast adjust would just create clipped highlights and crushed shadows. There was no way to get the pleasant contrast like from a DVD played of a CRT TV, by using a computer CRT monitor in a PC DVD kit.

Later someone told me there was a difference from a CRT computer monitor compared to a CRT TV, like one was designd for high contrast signal, and the other designed to low contrast signal. So a TV and a computer monitor, in the CRT era (before LCD start to domain market) would never be look like, one to another, for watch good quality DVD films.

But today, since LCD TVs and LCD computer monitor dominated the market, this difference is not more like before. I try the best image from a DVD or Blu ray on a computer LCD monitor and in a LCD TV, and both have the same limitations, very similar contrast, after trying the best settings for both.
The LCD TVs got many of the negative aspects from the PC DVD kit watched on CRT PC monitor had. It get fadded unless you push contrast and kill highlights and shadows details. For me this is really very sad, and I have no patience for watching LCD TVs, prefering a CRT despite be 480p screen resolution.
How and why this happened, this “homologation of contrast standart” between computer screen and TV screens ? Why they choosed a contrast standart that would create problems for watrching films on TV, causing the killing of dynamic range by destroying highlifgts and shadow details, while CRT TVs did not destroyed like that ?

For me this is so evident… I don’t know why people did not complained…
Now they created the HDR… but for me HDR mostly just tries to fix a problem that was created while introducing LCD TVs with a contrast standart thay lead highklights and shadows details to be killed. The industry tried to create video transfer more glossy, to try compensate the faded basic look of LCD TV. But even so all LCD TVs have very poor dynamic, unless we adjusted it to have faded look, or unless you have HDR.

All this and people stay silent… Why peole are so tolerant with the loss of good contrast and good dynamic from CRT times?
I bet even OLED TVs have some this problem, due the new contrast standart, result from the homologation of standarts between computer monitors and TVs. But all OLED models I saw on stores was running HDR videos, so I need to see it again, running a non HDR video, to be sure.

 

[Brian Kidd]

It has always been the case that LCD doesn't "do black" as well as Plasma or even the old CRT televisions. They've gotten a lot better over the years, but they still aren't great. I don't really have experience with OLED to be able to make a judgment call on them. Why did LCD dominate when Plasma had the better picture? A few reasons: price, bulk, and burn-in.

Plasmas cost a lot more to manufacture and, therefore, were always more expensive than LCD. God forbid something went wrong with one because the cost of repairs, if it could even be repaired, was often as much as buying a new set. My first HDTV was a Samsung Plasma and it had a beautiful picture. It also stopped working after just a couple of years. As for the bulk, Plasma TV's could give you a hernia trying to lift them and they put out a tremendous amount of heat. Finally, you really had to keep an eye out for burn-in on Plasma sets, which wasn't as much of an issue on LCD sets.

Sadly, better quality doesn't always win. Ask Sony about Betamax.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

OLEDs don't have this problem. How can I be sure? Simply that OLED pixels can turn completely off. They "graying" you describe with LCDs occurs because LCDs have to be backlit; they cannot generate any light of their own. The majority of inexpensive LCD panels today are either edge-lit or full-array lit by LEDs, and older LCDs used CCFLs [cold-cathode fluorescent lighting] for backlighting; better quality LCD panels use FALD [full-array local dimming], which can increase contrast by reducing the backlight or completely turning off the backlight in certain sectors, yielding deeper blacks, but again, it's an imperfect system.

All displays have some sort of compromise. I've already discussed LCD issues, but plasma was prone to something that OLEDs can exhibit too: burn-in, where static images displayed for an extended period of time can be retained on the panel. Samsung is experimenting with their own form of an increased contrast display called QLED [quantum-dot LED], which uses QLEDs as a backlight for an LCD panel, thus leveraging the deep blacks of the on/off nature of LEDs against the proven display tech of LCD. Again, a compromise.

There were certain analogue "artefacts" built into CRT displays that made them a little more forgiving of visual anomalies, and part of what you are seeing when saying that contrast is "grayer" or flatter is a case of the timing being calibrated on a CRT vs. an LCD. LCDs have gotten better over the years, but they're still not perfect, which is why display tech continues to evolve. As I see it, you can either wait for the perfect display, or you can compromise as much as you are willing.

 

[Alberto_D]

Brian, thank you for your response. But you missed the most important question I made.
Why PC CRT monitors had a different contrast standart then CRT TVs, and now LCD computer monitors and LCD TVs have the same contrast standart ?

I mean, in CRT times, with compouter and TV as CRTs, the DVD looked glossy and very nice on CRT TV, but looked fadded on CRT computer monitor (unless increase contrast and destroy most highkights and most shadows) when using PC DVD kits.

Why now the LCD TVs have the same problems like we had whatching DVDs in CRT computer moitor ?

For me there is some good deal to blame to the homologation they did to make computer and TV screen in the same standart of contrast. They made this s... to allow people use TV for web surfing (smart TV). For me the proof of this homologation is that when LCD dominate the market the movie start to come in more glossy transfer, to try to hide this horrible limitation created by the fact they turned TVs to be like PC monitor in terms of contrast.

I don't talk about contrast ratio. Contrast ration for LCD only matter while watching very dark scenes. I refer more to the higlights details and the shadow details, and not about get poure black. Pure black tones worths nothing if there is no details close to black to create the nuances and gradients that compose the details i shadows.
CRT TVs have no pure blacks, but looks far better in contrast, in glossy look without clipping and crushed, than any LCD TV.

I'm really tired, revolted. Every single time I go to store and check dozens of TVs, I don't find ne single TV that pleases me. All LCD look like garbage for me. I refuse to watch a film for entertainment in a living room in a LCD screen. AStronomy discovvred black holes, and LCD crapnology made us discover white holes, yes white holes. A actor in a modern video, TV series, ina usual set, today have white holes on face in parts that in CRT times would be just a brighter portion of face. This whites wholes thanks for the damn clipping. Sometimes this lead to a sky oaswhite roles, or a white or bright wall became a white hole, since it aan get the maxximum white value easily.
I don't accept a new technoloy looking worse in so many aspects. To me it's a retrocession.

I prepared a topic about most downsides of digital industry :

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co...y-mass-media-that-digital-its-perfect.355729/

It has always been the case that LCD doesn't "do black" as well as Plasma or even the old CRT televisions. They've gotten a lot better over the years, but they still aren't great. I don't really have experience with OLED to be able to make a judgment call on them. Why did LCD dominate when Plasma had the better picture? A few reasons: price, bulk, and burn-in.

Plasmas cost a lot more to manufacture and, therefore, were always more expensive than LCD. God forbid something went wrong with one because the cost of repairs, if it could even be repaired, was often as much as buying a new set. My first HDTV was a Samsung Plasma and it had a beautiful picture. It also stopped working after just a couple of years. As for the bulk, Plasma TV's could give you a hernia trying to lift them and they put out a tremendous amount of heat. Finally, you really had to keep an eye out for burn-in on Plasma sets, which wasn't as much of an issue on LCD sets.

Sadly, better quality doesn't always win. Ask Sony about Betamax.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Another point to be made: the earliest software DVD players did not use BLE [black level enhancement], which could be enabled on better hardware DVD players.

If LCDs look like garbage to you, it's because the retailers also calibrate their TVs for maximum brightness and contrast be damned. Play around with the controls and you'll get a more pleasing result.

 

[Alberto_D]

Stephen, it's not the little gray blacks (black in signal). CRT have some gray blacks and even so look much better than the LCD TV with best contrast ratio.
It's something else. The CRT computer monitor had different contrast than the CRT TVs, when I watched DVD on TV and rewatched it on a PC DVD kit. Despite all setting I tried atr the time, the image never got near good as on CRT TV.

Even LCD TVs with 2000.000:1 contrast ratio looked faded, unless we push contrast adjust, killing higlights and shadows details (clipping and crushing).
For me many LCD have the same blacks, looking when in a complete dark scene of film, than some very good CRT TVs. Even so the CRT win by far over the crap LCD screen.

OLED.. I will only believe when I compare side by side with a CRT TV. I bet it still have some fadded look, despite pure blacks, compared to a CRT, watching the same video file on both and keeping setting to avoit clipping and crushing.

I still blame much of it to the homologation they did to turn PC and TV screen with the same contrast standart.

OLEDs don't have this problem. How can I be sure? Simply that OLED pixels can turn completely off. They "graying" you describe with LCDs occurs because LCDs have to be backlit; they cannot generate any light of their own. The majority of inexpensive LCD panels today are either edge-lit or full-array lit by LEDs, and older LCDs used CCFLs [cold-cathode fluorescent lighting] for backlighting; better quality LCD panels use FALD [full-array local dimming], which can increase contrast by reducing the backlight or completely turning off the backlight in certain sectors, yielding deeper blacks, but again, it's an imperfect system.

All displays have some sort of compromise. I've already discussed LCD issues, but plasma was prone to something that OLEDs can exhibit too: burn-in, where static images displayed for an extended period of time can be retained on the panel. Samsung is experimenting with their own form of an increased contrast display called QLED [quantum-dot LED], which uses QLEDs as a backlight for an LCD panel, thus leveraging the deep blacks of the on/off nature of LEDs against the proven display tech of LCD. Again, a compromise.

There were certain analogue "artefacts" built into CRT displays that made them a little more forgiving of visual anomalies, and part of what you are seeing when saying that contrast is "grayer" or flatter is a case of the timing being calibrated on a CRT vs. an LCD. LCDs have gotten better over the years, but they're still not perfect, which is why display tech continues to evolve. As I see it, you can either wait for the perfect display, or you can compromise as much as you are willing.

 

[Alberto_D]

Well, I had Power DVD, a version advanced, when PC could already run DVD by their own without a expansive board to process MPEG-2.
It have a special filter to give glossy aspect to the image, but it also created cliped whites and crushed shadows.

Digital photos, from web, made by good scanners, could look very nice on CRT pc monitor back then, with nice dynamic range, but all videos in comparissom looked faded unles you sacrifice highlights and shadows detaisl up to became anoying.

The proof it's not the lack of pure black pixels the reason for faded images, is that on a PC monitor today, even LCD, we can have glossy JPEG image with fine dynamics, but not a nice look with video files.

The same for LCD TVs able to slideshow JPEG images from a pendrive.

Another point to be made: the earliest software DVD players did not use BLE [black level enhancement], which could be enabled on better hardware DVD players.

If LCDs look like garbage to you, it's because the retailers also calibrate their TVs for maximum brightness and contrast be damned. Play around with the controls and you'll get a more pleasing result.

 

[Alberto_D]

"Samsung is experimenting with their own form of an increased contrast display called QLED [quantum-dot LED], which uses QLEDs as a backlight for an LCD panel, thus leveraging the deep blacks of the on/off nature of LEDs against the proven display tech of LCD. Again, a compromise."

If it's in a LCD it will never look good. It will always fade even in 10 degree angle of view, or have uneven light distribution if watch not far away.

They can create whatever Q, but no Q is able to make any LCD good for me.

A TV don't need to be perfect for me. But I will never accept something that is worse than CRT in almost all aspects, being better only in resolution, like LCD is.
And resolution in terms, cause it fails in some low motion due problematic refreshing rate.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

What you're describing doesn't match my experience of owning TVs in a post-CRT world. I have owned LCD screens, LED LCD screens, and plasma screens, and I have been satisfied with all. I am also extremely satisfied with my LCD-based HD 3D projector.

 

[Alberto_D]

That's why I think most people have limited view for dynamic range...

I did a kind of view test for colors and tones. It was two tests, one like a daltonic test, but with much more difficult, closer colors, in a a pattern, than the tests for daltonics. The other was a test where they presented many color squares, from a gradient, but out of order/sequence, and requested to put in perfect sequence, and I managed to hit all correct.

The test results told I have a view perception for color and tones above average of people. But it was a web test and not a test in a ophthalmologist, so I had imagined it was that sort of tests made to please people and make they feel special, like the tests people post on facebook thinking only few could solve but much more people were able than they imagined.

I clearly see differences from CRT (good models like sony trinitron) to LCD. CRTs show more details in shadowns and highlights and have better distribution of tones and colors. It also have more glow for pure white pixels.
A CRT TV was displaying a sports game, and a computer with Samsung monitor was displaying the same game at same time, side by side, and despite all kind of adjusts on the LCD the image never get even close to the CRT TV. If brightness was adjusted the image got whitish, loose all density, and if contrast was adjusted it got clipped and crushed for highlights and shadows respectivelly. Even with led backlight at maximum.
When I saw it, a good LCD model, the best kind that year, looking like that, I told myself : "I will never watch a film on living roon on a screen like that in my life! "I adamantine refuse to accept this trash as a better advanced technolgy for watch films!"

Some people almost say I'm nuts.

If someboddy give me a 80 inch 4K LCD TV for free, I do not accept it. Maybe I easily sell for lower price, or give to a school. But I refuse watch such poor dynamic range thing, with corrupted light distribuin along screen, and noticeable muddier look in angles as little as 10 degree.

What you're describing doesn't match my experience of owning TVs in a post-CRT world. I have owned LCD screens, LED LCD screens, and plasma screens, and I have been satisfied with all. I am also extremely satisfied with my LCD-based HD 3D projector.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That's why I think most people have limited view for dynamic range...

Perhaps it is not the best way to engage someone in conversation by telling them that they don't know how to see.

What's more likely? That everyone who's bought a TV in the past decade, and everyone here on HTF, is completely blind and has no idea what a good image is? With respect, it seems maybe more likely to me from your statements that you've seen new displays in less-than-optimal conditions (for instance, on display in stores with settings that one would never use in the home, or uncalibrated sets elsewhere) and are judging the whole of the technology based on those limited experiences?

I'm not really interested in arguing or being talked down to, so I will simply leave this thread. I sincerely wish you luck in finding a display that will suit your needs and preferences.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I have to wonder if Alberto watches movies at home in any form considering his latest series of posts.

 

[Alberto_D]

Peter, I watch entire movies in a CRT from Sony, for entertainment.
I checked the full resolution of image on PC, but do not watch enjoy the film like in a session watching from begin to end, just segments. For youtube I usually don't watch in full screen, since I use youtube only on computer, but in a small window, and more for science videos, documentary, nothing really long to enjoy like a good movie.

I tried to watch films in s Samsung LED (backlight on LCD screen) 4K TV. I really tried, more than one time, but after some minutes looking to it I got frustrated, disapointed, angry, and move off. It always happens...

Josh, I'm really sorry, I didn't wanted to be arrogant or call people of blind.
But after point the defects I cleary saw, not in a web forum but point to the TV screen to people by my side, and saying: "For God sackes, looke that thing... Don't you see what I'm showing you ??? " I started to think people don't manage to see things very well. Or maybe they don't know what quality is.

I checked TV in many conditions, one in home here (samsung 4K 50 inch), in stores (in light, shadow) in homes from other people. And also 3 LCD monitors here. Not a single good for my taste.

 

[Brent Reid]

 

[Alberto_D]

Ok, maybe I should take a sleep and tomorrow listen more, instead of talk/write everything at once.
Tomorrow is another day :

And a polished debate from me will rise.

View attachment 43150