LCD RPTVs: Why They Are Flying Out the Door

As a former blind man and current display calibrator, I can generally agree with Doug's approximation of the current state of the TV consuming public. After close to 10 years since the Imaging Science Foundation's campaign began to educate professionals, manufacturers and consumers about video image quality, little ground has been gained. It has been even longer since Joe Kane began writing articles in the consumer publications about what consititutes an accurate TV picture and what the usual picture controls mean and do.

When I say, "Little ground has been gained," I'm referring to what small percentage there really is of the TV viewing public, who understands the basic components of a good picture. Actually much has been gained among those who already have an interest in the field. A lot remains to be accomplished in the quest for accurate imaging and quality displays. Most TV owners don't care about how it operates and are satisfied with what they have, until it just stops working. A minority of video consumers sweat the details but are willing to pay extra for higher quality.

More consumers will desire better display quality only after they have been shown a good dose of superior images. A picture is worth a thousand words. It has been the relatively few outspoken individuals and visionaries who have brought us the better pictures experienced today. It's the activists and perfectionists that stir up the controversies and get the attention. "Average Joe" may not care about black level and, en masse, may spend the most collective money on TV. It's really the motivated, verbal few who usually affect change. This process typically requires speaking up over an extended period of time. Dale Cripps' efforts to promote HDTV is a vivid example of the kind of personal dedication, perseverance and energy required to nurture change.

The education process will be never ending when it comes to promoting awareness of image quality. There will always be a need for those who understand a technology to promote excellence in their field. It's usually a minority in any given field who both can and will articulate effectively on its behalf. That's why I support efforts like this forum, HDTV Magazine, the ISF, etc., in appreciation for what they are doing. I care a lot about image quality and benefit directly from their work. "Average Joe" may never realize it, but he will benefit as well. Those of us who understand a little bit about accurate TV pictures may find deficiencies in current LCD performance. What's current will still sell, but it won't get better without somebody calling out for better.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

Yep.....All I have to add is, "LONG LIVE CRT RPTVS!"...

There's a few things I'd like to clarify about my original message above:

* First, I'm not blaming consumers for their low expectations of video performance. If anything, consumers are mostly blameless. More of the fault lies with manufacturers who are determined to jazz up their sets to give them a distinctive look and cable/satellite distributors more focused on increasing choice (quantity) rather than quality (delivering the programming unadulterated).

So it follows that I think the "sell side" deserves much blame for the low level of "video fluency" of the average consumer. As a case in point, consider how broadcasters would much rather stretch or stretch/chop legacy 4x3 programming rather than make the effort to educate their viewers about widescreen television and aspect ratios.

Likewise, I find it amazing that after more than 50 years of television occupying a front-and-center position in the American home that the functioning of the brightness and contrast controls are a mystery for most viewers. I really can't think of any other industry that shows so little interest in helping consumers get the most from the product they sell.

(BTW, I too was a "blind man," only 5 years ago.)

* Second, these low expectations aren't really such a big deal when we're talking casual viewing.

But I see a major disconnect once someone takes the decision to spend serious money (more than $1000) on a television. Consumers are crossing this threshold more frequently and more willingly than ever before. But all of the anecdotal evidence points to the fact that the only thing most of these freer-spending consumers expect to gain for their larger outlay is BIGGER and (possibly) BRIGHTER. It's almost as if the public at large views "home theater" as little more than a marketing gimmick for "big screen."

But the fact is, with these new formats and new, higher-resolution technologies, the real criteria should be about replicating or even improving upon the "going to the movies" experience.

To me, home theater ultimately should be about breaking down the barrier between the viewer and the display device. Sometimes you see this referred to as "the suspension of disbelief," meaning that viewers can more easily immerse themselves in the program. It's not a matter of "watching," it's a matter of "being involved."

No doubt BIGGER is a fundamental part of that equation, but it's only one part of the story and unlikely the most important one.

* Finally, I don't want to leave the impression that I'm anti-digital display, because I actually believe digital displays have incredible potential and that they ARE the future of this business.

But I think we're at the same point with digital displays as we were with the original HDTVs in 1998. The first US HDTV demonstration I saw, the manufacturer rep remarked afterward that the best thing about this set was that it's probably going to be the "worst-looking HDTV you'll ever see," meaning that the technology was brand new and would only get better with each new generation of sets.

I think we're at a similar point with plasma, LCD and DLP technologies. I'm pretty confident that these digital displays will only get better over time. But I'm also convinced that will happen a great deal more quickly if the public expects it, rather than simply accepting what they're given because it's bigger, brighter or cooler.

Love to play "Devil's Advocate"

I too love CRT RPTVs (but only a handfull of them) when they're properly calibrated and set up. They're hard to beat for dedicated dark-room home theaters at their price point. BUT, home theater isn't the primary thing most people use their TVs for, and the dark room "movie" experience is very different from HD broadcast television, especially in a lit room. Let's face it, for light output and HD (NOT DVD) resolution, CRT based RPTVs just can't match newer technology and (undistorted) light output is sometimes very important.

If you're into watching Jay Leno, Monday Night Football, Olympics, and similar bright, colorful programming in a well lit room, the LATEST Sony LCD RPTVs (when calibrated to get the dreadful blue out) will simply blow the doors off all but one CRT set I've seen (the big Mits with 9" guns) with bright HD program material. The Mits isn't as bright but it does have good HD resolution and it has that elusive CRT magic which goes a long way. Other CRT based sets just aren't bright, clean and sharp enough to give you the "you are there" illusion that makes sporting and live events so fun.

While DLP RPTVs should blow the Sony LCDs away, in my side-by-side comparisons, they haven't (so far). The Sony's have improved even since last year. Blacks might be a bit better on the DLP sets (not a whole lot) but in many other respects, the LCDs seem to look a bit better. And when overdriven (CONTRAST up too high), LCD looks far better than competing technologies that are overdriven due to more benign symptoms.

Most people don't audition TVs with DVDs or dark scene program material so they don't get to see the significant shortcomings of these new designs (lousy blacks), but even if they were shown, they'd still probably pick the sharper, brighter picture in spite of the blacks for HD broadcasts (especially sporting events), especially since it's free from convergence headaches, geometry errors, and uniformity errors. When each technology has limitations, strengths, and weaknesses, it's only reasonable to pick the one that works best with your environment and with your typical viewing habits. None is perfect for everything.

The lousy blacks of LCD and some DLP and plasma sets would be enough to disqualify them from the realm of acceptability if it were not for an optical illusion that works in their favor. As the program material gets brighter and brighter, blacks (or dark things) on the screen look blacker and blacker even if they're really not. The brighter the picture, the blacker the blacks seem. Once the scene shifts and the picture gets dim, the illusion vaporizes and the lousy blacks are more than apparent again. This is why bright program material can still look terrific even on sets with lousy blacks.

I'm starting to get on the LCD side more and more. While they definitely have shortcomings (even the big direct-view sets), their advantages are significant. Consider the LG 42" direct-view: On a FULL WHITE SCREEN, that set will pump out 4 times the foot-lamberts (light output) of a GOOD plasma and 8 times the foot-lamberts of the typical CRT based RPTV. Don't think that matters? Watch it side-by-side on an outdoor snow scene (like snowboarding championships) and witness the plasmas (and ALL CRTs) just look terrible by comparison (and we ALL know what snow really looks like in bright sun). Plasma and CRT sets suffer greatly reduced light output as more and more of the screen has to be brightly lit. LCD keeps the same light output regardless of how much bright content is being displayed. Granted, the LG won't always reign supreme on more typical program material, but it'll hold its own (if you watch it head-on and not off axis) with all but the dark stuff. But If you try to use it as a home theater product in a dark room, the light output might be annoying, even with a bias light, and if you turn down the contrast to reduce it, the picture will become a washed out mess.

The black problem with LCD rear projection sets might soon come to an end. Even now, Sony's front LCD projector ($3500) has stunning CRT like blacks and a measured contrast ratio in the thousands. In contrast (pun), many CRT sets won't even go down to black--the one advantage that technology has always had. Sometimes it's poor DC restoration but more often the manufacturer has designed them that way to make dark scenes look better in bright rooms. A Hitachi from 2 years ago did stunning blacks while their top-of-the-line last year couldn't. Inferior circuitry? No. Different design and setup philosophy most likely. This shift in black level with picture content is also common in newer technologies for the same reason---they wanted it like that.

So, my devils advocate argument is that the newer technologies might suffer a bit to home theater enthusiasts, but to HDTV enthusiasts, they're capable of some things CRT set's can't even approach, and those particular things make Monday Night Football (for example) look absolutely stunning. And, while manufacturers have sometimes been getting their factory calibrations in the ball park with newer CRT sets, they seem to be intentionally calibrating these LCD sets blue beyond belief and often with huge amounts of red push to compensate. Calibration, therefore, makes even more improvement.

I am responding to and older thread, but I thought I would chime in. The fact is that that I have calibrated many RPTV Sony LCDs and Samsung DLPs over the last couple years and I have not been impressed. In dark scenes, the gray background absolutely kills the picture. I here whining among CRT enthusiast about detail in picture in dark scenes, but you can forget about it in consumer DLPs and LCDs. I have seen quality in FPTV DLPs, but those were displays outside the price range of most consumers. From the displays I have calibrated, I would not buy a RPTV digital display based on what I have seen, even though I enjoyed demos on some of the LCOS displays. I did not get to test them with my matieral, so I won't acknowledge the capabiliy.

I am looking to purchase a reasonbly-priced high performing digital display. But, I am not satisfied with anything I have seen.

From a calibrator standpoint, it is tough on me to calibrate digital displays after having calibrated many CRT displays. I have another Samsung DLP calibration in the morning. All of my Samsung customers in the past have been excited about the results, but I have always been dissapointed, not in the color but the detail and black level. It is a strange feeling when you are not happy, but the customer is.

Bill

Well, I have 4 TV at home: RCA CRT RPTV HDTV, 42 Panasoniv Plasma HDTV, 32 inch CRT and recently Sony Gran Wega 60XS955. I read a lot about different TV and it benefits before making a purchase. And After looking around and reading reviews, i decided to go with the SONY Gran WEGA and what a TV. Has better resolution than Plasma, CRT and DLP. I went to best buy and circuit city and compare them before making my purchase online. I kept reading about the screen door effect on the RPTV LCD and the blk looking gray on dark scenes and guess WHAT. NON of that is true. The blk scene is even better that the DLP and plasma and is actually blk. As far as the Screen door efect goes, i haven't ewven notice it during normal view. but if you zoom in a scene you will see it but you will barely notice it unless you're real close. RPTV LCD IS THE BEST TV I HAD EVER BOUGHT

I kept reading about the screen door effect on the RPTV LCD and the blk looking gray on dark scenes and guess WHAT. NON of that is true.

For the new generation only blacks are improved and the screen door effect is marginal if not unseen at 3 or more screen heights. Blacks seem to be one of the remaining hurdles but only an issue in a dark room.

If you had seen last years or even older models I don't think you would have been quite as impressed.

Are you going to get it calibrated?