Psycoacoustics For The Eyes (psycovisuals?)

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Andy Goldstein, Aug 15, 2004.

  1. Andy Goldstein

    Andy Goldstein Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    PSYCOACOUSTICS FOR THE EYES (PSYCOVISUALS?)

    Here is my take on analog TV (crt) versus digital TV (lcd, lcos, plasma, dlp, etc.)

    I am only considering the display technology, not the electronics behind them. Just the output device.

    On a digital TV there are several types of defects: stuck or missing pixels, due to various problems, depending on the type of display. No output, due to burned-out lamp. Screen-door effect, blurred motion, rainbows.

    On an analog TV (remember, just the output device) there are several types of defects: focus problems (adjustable), mis-convergance (adjustable), no output, due to burned-out lamp (front projection crt).

    Things in common: grey scale, color, brightness and contrast. All adjustable.

    Some of the digital "defects" (SDE, rainbows, etc.) can be adjusted out to some extent, but are really still there. And "broken"-type defects (stuck/missing pixels) can not be salvaged.

    To my mind, the digital defects are far and away worse than the analog ones. Either they can not be fixed, or cost a few hundred dollars to replace a wear-out item (lamp or light engine). The analog defects, to me at least, are much easier to live with. A slight out-of-focus condition is tolerable. At least until I get a chance to tweak it. Same thing for misconvergance.

    Any comments?

    BTW, I have a RPCRT TV. No way I could have paid for a flat panel, and I replaced a 27" TV in an entertainment center, so no space problems. Also, my front speakers are 4 feet tall, 18" wide, and 12" deep (Home-made double Advents). The RPTV looks very nice between the speakers. [​IMG]
     
  2. ChrisWiggles

    ChrisWiggles Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    4,791
    Likes Received:
    1
    There are a lot of differences, and we could talk for days about the subtleties specifically within differnt applications of even the same technology, let along totally different one. In my opinion, CRT projection produces the most natural, and most pleasing image for reference video. Technically speaking, 3-chip DLP to my eyes is the most unforgiving, resolving display that I've seen, which has its downsides. If I wanted to know precisely what was on a DVD in the most thoroughly resolved way possible, I would turn to a 3-chipper. Unfortunately, with both SDE, and dithering, and unrelenting resolving of all the nasties in DVDs I don't find it the most natural to watch. The SXRD stuff is somewhere in between, but closer to CRT, and IMO a subjective step above DLP. This is assuming quality setup, and displays without defects in production or setup.
     
  3. StephenHa

    StephenHa Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0
    I actually prefer the picture of the lcos sets, then crt second with plasma being the last place
     
  4. DaveGTP

    DaveGTP Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,096
    Likes Received:
    0

    Ahh, but not every display has stuck or dead pixels. They tend to be DOA, not dying later. Lamps can be replaced. SDE is not an issue on the smaller RPTVs, IMO. Blurred motion is only with LCD - and is mainly whipped for RPTVs? Rainbows are a physiological effect - you see them or you don't. Most don't on the 5x wheel in the RPTVs (I see them on my 2x wheel X1).



    Digital displays benefit from always perfect geometry, focus, etc. Personally I can see the weaker black levels and black level detail in my X1 (DLP projector) - I take the trade off for size, convenience, etc. I have considered a used CRT projector a few times.

    As far as TV sets - personally, only the good plasmas (Panny & their similiar brethren) are nearly as good as tube CRTs when it comes to image, black levels, etc. The tradeoffs of the CRTs, though, is the wandering image quality. And I can't stand CRT RPTVs, personally. They never look 100% consistent (washout effect). But I can't see going LCD (crappy black levels) or DLP RPTVs for more than the price of a CRT.

    Anyway, I guess, personally, I find the issues on CRTs more annoying because they change over time. More annoying, thus, than the digital issues - but most of the CRT issues are solvable given a lot of upkeep/maintenence/tinkering - so I understand when CRT people want to stick with them. I work full time and go to school full time - time is more valuable than $ in my world at this point.


    And I've never understood LCD. For computers, yes. For HT, ick! Black levels are pitiful, colors always look a little off (like neon-y and too sharp somehow). DLP admittedly looks a tiny bit plastic-y to me - less so with my projector than the Samsung DLP RPTVs.

    Ignoring projectors (the size always wins out)

    At larger sizes (42"+)
    A good plasma given the spending dollars
    If not, CRT RPTV and deal with the viewing angle, problems watching in lit environments, etc.

    At small sizes, it is
    CRT
    Small plasma (37")



    I can't see going DLP RPTV or LCD RPTV. Just don't understand.
     
  5. Max Leung

    Max Leung Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    4,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    There can be motion artifacts with DLP though...people report posterization (ie. going all pixellated or colors start to form bands) in scenes with motion such as camera pans.

    I see motion artifacts, but knowing how poor film handles panning at 24 frames per second, I can never be sure if I'm seeing problems with the film, the 3:2 pulldown process (juddering on smooth motion pans), bad deinterlacing, or a DLP temporal dithering artifact. I have seen much worse motion artifacting in theaters, so I guess I should count myself lucky? [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  6. Andy Goldstein

    Andy Goldstein Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    i guess what i am trying to say is that, for me at least, the problems with an analog display are more tolerable than the "all-of-a-sudden" "in-your-face" "jarring" (pick one) type of defects that digital displays are capable of. i am very happy with my panny 53" rpcrt. barring a catastrophic failure, the picture might drift in focus or alignment over time. (yes, the dredded "evil pop" might rear it's ugly head) but its not likely that while watching a movie with a house full of guests that the lamp will go out, or a pixel will freeze, etc.

    does this make any sense?

    ag.
     

Share This Page