Strange article from Jan / Feb Perfect Vision

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Steve_Klein, Dec 25, 2005.

  1. Steve_Klein

    Steve_Klein Agent

    Dec 22, 2002
    Likes Received:
    Hi all:

    How about some thoughts about a paragraph from the January / February 2006 issue of The Perfect Vision (quoted below)? It's from the Toshiba 62HM195 1080p DLP RPTV review by Randy Tomlinson on page 62. Enjoy!

    "DLP and plasma are the only fully digital display technologies available today. By that, I mean that a digital signal at the HDMI input remains digital until it actually reaches your eyes. That's right--your eyes are the digital-to-analog converter. This seems to be the ultimate way to display video, but there is an ongoing debate about just how hard the human brain must work to function as a DAC and whether or not this causes viewing fatigue."

    Okay, here are my questions:

    1. Is the author stating that there is something about DLP and plasma that makes them "more digital" than other fixed-pixel display technologies utilizing HDMI (e.g. LCD, LCoS, D-ILA, SXRD, etc.)? If so, what would that be?

    2. At first glance it appeared to me that the author was making some... let's say unwarranted assumptions about the visual portion of the EM spectrum (digital -- huh?) and the cognitive science / neuroscience behind human visual acuity (the eyes / brain as a DAC, the brain being analog -- huh?), but is there really something to this? This seems to go beyond the usual "digital vs. analog" argument. Where is this "ongoing debate" (specific to home theater technology I mean) and what will I find when I get there? Most importantly, am I risking brain damage by watching DVD via HDMI on my plasma? Or by taking in the ongoing debate? Or both? [​IMG]

    The author doesn't seem to be stating that picture quality is affected one way or another by where in the signal chain the D/A conversion occurs, but that the human brain may actually work harder if there's no D/A conversion before the display (at least with DLP or plasma anyway). I want to keep an open mind about this, but I have to admit on first reading the paragraph above struck me as more than slightly loopy. Actually, I had the misfortune to be in mid-sip of a carbonated beverage at the time; you might guess the outcome.

    Thanks in advance!
  2. ChrisWiggles

    ChrisWiggles Producer

    Aug 19, 2002
    Likes Received:

    I am most proud and impressed that there actually are other people in the world(such as yourself!) that read things and engage their "common sense" before accepting everything they read as true. Thank you for sustaining my hope in all humanity! [​IMG]
  3. Joseph DeMartino

    Joseph DeMartino Lead Actor

    Jun 30, 1997
    Likes Received:
    Real Name:
    Joseph DeMartino

    In a narrow technical sense he may have a point, but in the "real world English sense" the guy is a yutz. Unless he's seeing 1s and 0s on those plasma and DLP screens, he's seeing analog information, because that's what an image made up of light is, just as sound coming out of a speaker and moving air is an analog waveform and not some kind of digital data. If you can see it or hear it, it's analog, and your eyes and ears are not acting as DACs. That in some systems the last digital to analog conversion may take place a step or two earlier in the signal path doesn'tm make one better than the other or what this guy says any truer.



Share This Page