3M-Commissioned Research Shows Consumers Value Wide-Angle Vi

[Shane]

A new study commissioned by 3M shows that American consumers want high brightness and quality no matter at what angle they view their LCD TVs.

The study was conducted by CBS Vision, the Las Vegas-based research division and facility owned by CBS Corporation. 3M is a leading technology company in high-quality consumer electronics.

The findings show that...

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/news/2011/12/3mcommissioned-research-shows-consumers-value-wideangle-viewing-on-their-lcd-tvs.php]Read Bulletin[/url]

[Roger Halstead]

I view the ridiculous viewing angles listed by most manufacturers as nothing more than bragging rights. It varies with individuals but once you pass 45 to 60 degrees the image is useless even if it's as sharp as a high resolution photograph. The same is true in the vertical plane.

There are people who demand these wide viewing angles yet complain about a standard aspect ration stretched to wide angle, or wide angle compressed to standard. Viewing off angle at 45 to 60 degrees gives the very same effect.

Older viewers have less sensitivity to colors so they do need bright and saturated colors from where ever they view. However I would suspect either the tests or the way questions were asked. Many older viewers have brightness, saturation, and contrast set to the point I consider the results ghastly and I'm an older viewer. Yes I want the proper colors (hue and saturation) but I also want the proper aspect ratio of what ever is displayed. The limitations of aspect ration severely limit off axis viewing. I prefer to view within 10 degrees of the axis or in other words, perpendicular to the screen or as close as possible.

My flat screen HDTV lists viewing angles of over 170 degrees which is well beyond ridiculous. The image is clear and sharp as far as I'm willing to view off axis and far beyond that point.

If taken at their word for the tests this would result in spending more for only bragging rights. As the article said, people were unaware of many of these characteristics until they were pointed out.

Base on all of that...I see this as a waste of money to deliver things people say they want and can not detect the difference.

I spend a good 8 hours a day in front of HD TVs and high resolution computer monitors. Rarely do I see one with the colors properly set up by the end user with them typically being over saturated and garish looking displays. I'm also a photographer and past professional photographer so I have a reasonably good eye for colors and notice aspect distortion from off axis viewing.

Again, I think following through on this study would do nothing more than end up as a waste of money.

[Rodolfo]

Interesting twist within your same post Roger,

Your post starts by agreeing with the idea that LCD has serious viewing angle problems, which the study brings out to the surface, but ends up with the idea that it is a waste of money. Perhaps you did not see the link showing the technology 3M is working to improve the viewing angle problem of LCD, which certainly makes the study beneficial to them, but that is not the point, the reality of LCD weakness is.

[url]http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/OSD_NA_3MOpticalSystems/OSD_NA_Home/?WT.mc_id=www.3m.com/makesyouwonder[/url]

Regarding your statement:
[quote]My flat screen HDTV lists viewing angles of over 170 degrees which is well beyond ridiculous. The image is clear and sharp as far as I'm willing to view off axis and far beyond that point[/quote].

Did you actually mean "as far as I'm NOT willing to view off axis...."? Otherwise please clarify what it seems to be a contradiction.

My take on this study is different and multi-benefit:

[b]1)[/b] A company finally has the guts to bring to surface LCD's viewing angle problem (while all others still claim a ridiculous 178 degrees, even on 3D).

[b]2)[/b] It uses the opportunity to introduce their technology that may help on that problem and perhaps make LCD be better than it has been.

[b]3)[/b] It helps many of those that feel their LCDs are great TVs to view in a group at various angles actually see they are not as good, not just by exchanging opinions on a forum, which usually are not supported by facts but rather by ignorance.

[b]4)[/b] It shows that the high sales of LCDs have nothing to do with customer knowledge of image quality but rather a result of a push-down- the-throat attitude of TV manufacturing toward LCD regardless of its image quality.

[b]5)[/b] It also brings the idea that viewing angle problems not only affect HD but also 3D depth of an already degraded image-pair.

[b]6)[/b] It corroborates what I have been saying for years since the beginning of the plasma vs. LCD arguments regarding image quality.

[b]7)[/b] It shows that consumers may be persuaded to even buy the Statue fo Liberty if retail stores would pack it neatly and sell it thru sales people that have no knowledge of what they are selling, and therefore they are not in a condition to properly educate consumers about image quality, and that motivates manufacturers to try to sell more of the same stuff because revenue is up.

I find this study an eye opener after so many years of lies, and after so many years of not telling consumers about a serious weakness that affects most, since most are not viewing straight to the set.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[Roger Halstead]

First, I see no problem with off axis viewing on the sets I have out to useless angles.
IOW most sets allow viewing at angles where the image perspective is so distorted as to be useless which is much past 45 degrees.
I have clean, sharp images with the proper colors way past angles where they are of any use.

I've been a photographer, among many other things, for most of my long life. I do not like distortion be it stretched or squashed. Viewing off axis gives an image that is distorted with the horizontal squashed that is no different than viewing a wide angle image on a standard screen with the width of the image compressed to fit. That's enough to get me to change the channel. I've seen and read many complaints about this distortion so I expect the public really either doesn't care about these advances, or do not understand what they are talking about. In general the general public is completely clueless when it comes to technical subjects.

Also it depends on what and how the questions were asked.

Yes, I really do see the money spend developing sharp wider off axis viewing as a waste because I do not believe the public really wants what they are asking for. Kinda like our politicians. When I say off axis I mean beyond 60 degrees is a waste because the public complains about the distortion when they do see it.

Color, hue, and saturation are corrected within our minds (within reason) Wear those pink contrast correcting glasses on a day with blue sky and scattered fluffy clouds. After an hour, take the glasses off. You will find you are now looking at brilliant green clouds rather than white. your mind corrects the colors to what it thinks they should be as if a filter had been placed over your eyes. Of course colors wil rapidly go back to normal in just a minute or so.

[Rodolfo]

I am not sure I understand your position on the subject Roger, it appears you object LCD image quality when viewed off axis, and dislike image distortion when the TV changes original aspect ratios (which is not exclusive to LCD), but you accept the impact to color, contrast, and brightness when viewing at 60 degrees off axis, and state that the brain will adjust the colors anyway when recognizing objects. With that theory there would be no need to calibrate any TV because the brain will adjust the viewed objects to what they should be, I bet what ISF would say about that.

The geometric distortion perceived when viewing a displayed image in the correct aspect ratio should be similar to what our eyes perceive when viewing the front of any real object from the same angle, the problem with LCD is that the technology penalizes colors, contrast, and brightness at viewing angles over 10-15% off axis, and the effect deteriorates further as the angle is increased, not to mention at the 178 degrees commonly specified by most LCDs.

Regardless if a majority of viewers may have not realized this weakness of LCD, or how the questions were made, the problem exists, and any technology that could solve this problem at a reasonable cost would not be a waste to me, like reducing LCDs motion-blur with faster pixel speed and frame rates (not a problem with plasma technology), especially when most of the TVs sold today are LCDs and all families have multiple viewing angles horizontally and vertically.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[paulk2]

There are many situations where extreme off-angle viewing is desired - sports bars, patio, small rooms, many visitors and I'm sure you can come up with more. These are situations where picture distortion is not as important - perhaps viewing a weather report where seeing text is more important than proper color/aspect ratio/contrast/etc. These are situations where best viewing conditions are gladly sacrificed for location and convenience. Perhaps the display is informational.

It's nice to know that all your guests can see the squished/stretched/offset picture instead of nothing.

Paul Kempter

[eliwhitney]

A Merry Christmas Morning paulk2

Only offered as an "Alternative" ....

To be able to "see" Off-axis and still have a respectable P.Q., all that's required IS to buy a Plasma Set - - not any other! ...LESS costly, display-for-display, too.

{Burn-in, Permanent Images, etc., have been dealt with via automatic "Pixel" moving, and so has excessive Power Usage.}

eli