For some of our readers the loss of anti-glare screens will be a disappointment.
At the show Sharp still was providing a few models with the old screen. Whether that was due to having significant old stock to move, following through on a volume purchase or production run versus a conscious decision to continue providing them for customers who might want them, I do not know. It was clear Sharp was joining in on the facelift. This might be the last year of anti-glare models for them. I can tell you that getting accurate and conclusive information out of a manufacturer on such topics is difficult and sometimes impossible. Much of the time the answer is manipulative so reporters will follow the marketing template being promoted.
It could be said Mitsubishi has a marketing advantage with their DLP line since it does have an anti-glare screen. I suspect those who are aware of such things will be the few and far between.
CRT rear projection provides an astonishing parallel and reference point. For well over a decade the manufacturer stopped at the lenticular screen. This provided the properties of anti-glare without the SSE, silk screen effect, or what some described as a frosted look. A new aftermarket developed for screen protectors of the shiny glass variety. Hitachi started providing a screen protector including antiglare properties of the frosted variety about 1996. I always removed these for the customer during a repair and every single time they noticed the difference in clarity. By the late 90's manufacturers discovered through marketing research that the market preferred the shiny glass look of their old CRTs for aesthetic as well as imaging perception reasons. I cannot deny the perception of depth and clarity such a screen provides nor can I deny these positive properties are an artifact when using film and screen as the reference. By about 2000 we suddenly started seeing CRT RP with shiny glass screens. Many an ISF calibrator removed them due to glare issues but that was expensive and required refocusing the lenses. Mitsubishi was the only manufacturer to design this screen separate from the viewing screens allowing optional removal by the owner. The ironic outcome was marketing these shiny screens as anti-glare!
Unfortunately lenticular screens can cause problems with high resolution imaging because there are limitations to how tightly they can pack the groovy nature of how it works. This was the reason CRT manufacturers claimed to be holding back on providing a high resolution response with CRT RP; back to that marketing template. With the high resolution response of micro-displays such as DLP this type of screen went into the dust bin of history. I can detect the SSE of our DLP but it requires the right image; one that is very bright. The HT Guys have also touched on the SSE artifact in some of their reviews noting that getting the display out of sales mode reduces SSE quite a bit. Many, if not most owners, are unaware of this artifact.
I think this was a good move by the LCD camp for both the mass market and videophiles. The mass market is unaware of these details for the most part and most don’t care. Based on marketing it seems self apparent that most would choose shiny glassy over full anti-glare if given the choice. LCD is extremely bright with very high contrast ratios and during my Mitsubishi LCD review the SSE artifact was far more prominent and therefore annoying. As noted in the column pixel visibility is far better with a clear screen and therefore detail perception as well. If these glassy displays would have been available at the time I would have touched on this subject for our videophile readers. If you can control the glare and intend to watch at a close 3-4 screen heights viewing distance go with glassy. Personally, LCD just got better in my book!
This brings me to Alice... Dr. Soniera of Displaymate recently completed a two part series of an LCD versus Plasma shootout for Widescreen Review. Bottom line is that plasma and LCD are 100% comparable provided the LCD viewer is sitting right smack in the middle of the screen and does not move to the left or right. Viewing angle remains a problem if you seek video standards for off angle viewers because even with the best LCD screens the color response slightly changes. CRT rear projection also suffered from this, shifting the color temperature red if on the right and blue if on the left. Micro-display, DLP/LCD/LCOS, rear projection created only a decrease in light output. Direct View CRT and Plasma, or a front projector and screen, are the only technologies that don’t have this kind of problem.
I'd bet that the number who have a TV viewing room in reality, not just one they call that, is probably way less than 1%.
True. It is quite rare for an individual to follow imaging science and if they do typically a room has to be committed to that.
Viewing environment is critical to performance and in the real world of people most are oblivious. Wjhunt reminds us of this salient point!
By the way, appropriate is in the eye of the beholder/investor.
All true! Throw out the calibration discs, education and science...
The display will occupy a space in the room that is aesthetically pleasing to the owner. More often than not the display size will be based on what fits into their current cabinetry or furniture. Without that, display size often times will be based on not creating a focal point in the room, yet again an aesthetic interior design concern, leading to smaller sizes. It’s likely that the room you want to put your main display in will have a fireplace and that will be the focal point of the room for other furnishings making the space occupied by the fireplace the prime location for a display; it’s a housing catch 22. Glare is a secondary issue that becomes a problem only if it offends somebody. As Roger points out there are aftermarket anti-glare screens for those seeking this feature.
For one the increased contrast is hard on your eyes according to my ophthalmologist.
And it can create headaches. This is an extremely deep subject that could take up pages and the best place in the world to investigate it is
http://www.cinemaquestinc.com
CRT viewing . . . w/ it's abilities to overcome any situation . . . IS long gone.
Only a handful of front projectors can adapt to day night conditions and provide correct results. While smaller CRT sizes may have had a wider window of light output without creating problems compared to LCD or plasma, it was still limited. My review last year of the Mitsubishi LCD though provided a new outlook on this. That display had an astonishingly wide range of light output without creating obvious image artifacts and I have yet to figure out the how and why of it or if performance remains valid across the entire range. I can say that true back lighting controls have not created that much range and topping it off, Mits did not appear to be accomplishing this result by changing the light output of the back lights; as noted in the bench review the light output of black remained the same.
