----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Rodolfo,
> I forgot to ask you if you or your client already bought this LCD
This particular client, loyal to us, likes to pick stuff out and have us
put it in. Checking on the HDMI 1.3 was our decision... LOL
I am concerned about the performance future... I am hearing in 3 years
all our local stores will carry is flat panel.
The problems you encountered are not uncommon. Digital displays require
precision contrast and brightness adjustment with a color analyzer to
get the gamma right so the digital processing is running at it's maximum
dynamic range otherwise you will get a plethora of artifacts. Some
technologies and designs fair better than others when not set right. The
higher the internal processing, 8-10-12 bit, the less likely you will
have problems when not set right.
I know Sharp has not recieved any great ratings from Cnet...
Thank you for your thoughtful concern!
Richard Fisher
ISF and HAA certified
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard,
>
> I forgot to ask you if you or your client already bought this LCD because if
> you did not I believe you should be made aware of some impressions I get
> every time I view this set.
>
> Green depth:
>
> Look for a full image with tall grass blades on all the screen, from a close
> up to all the way to the back.
>
> Pay attention at the first 25% of the close up on the bottom of the screen,
> is generally crisp as it should be, one can see the individual blades as
> expected, and the dark shades give definition contouring each blade.
>
> Now look at the background, the other 75% of blades behind the close up (or
> leaves, or trees), one would expect to be a bit less defined out of the
> close up but it is absolutely blurry, no definition, no depth, no shades, a
> mass of a green "stuff" equally undefined from the front to the back, no
> gradual degradation of definition due to distance, that happens no matter
> the panel resolution, and it presents itself as a one piece fade out object
> of green.
>
> Skin:
>
> Look at the faces and hands of people that have wrinkles, skin defects,
> spots, etc. Impossible to see those, no matter how close the close up. The
> skin is presented like a mass of skin color without any thread, porous,
> marks, etc. One can see that is skin because of the position in the
> person's body, but it could perfectly pass as skin color fabric/plastic.
>
> The person moves a bit and the skin area shows as ants moving at a different
> speed of the person movement, and this is not necessarily because of not
> having 4ms of response time, the person's face could move just a little and
> slow, and the effect still there.
>
> We all know about the general weaknesses of LCD, blacks, angled views, lag,
> etc. This is different.
>
> This set is not alone on this behavior, but I thought I should tell you this
> before you order it, or if you already ordered it, check if there is any
> correction you can make on ISF to make it more palatable.
>
> One could say that I am nuts, but frankly on a 130" screen 15 feet away on a
> 1080p projector I can perfectly see the blades of all the grass areas all
> the way to the back, and the skin porous and imperfections of people skin
> that are not even in close ups (in close ups I can see each porous and face
> spots on blu-ray 1080p24fps and even 1080i/60 that far away), and I am sure
> you are as picky as me and demand a minimum level of image quality, this is
> not the Wall-Mart 17" LCD for the kitchen.
>
> As far as I can remember there is not a single LCD review on any magazine on
> all the years LCD is out that mentions the subject, they concentrate in the
> lag errors, blacks, etc, and of course the remote control.
>
> Perhaps we should continue the exchange privately, but I hope is not too
> late.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
> HDTV Technology Consulting
>
> Senior Technical Director
>
>
www.hdtvmagazine.com
>
> (571) 333-2575 phone/fax
> (703) 864-6336 Mobile
> (313) 625-6336 Mobile fax
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:51 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> The short answer is NO.
>
> If you care to read:
>
> The Sharp was a 2005 product; it was first announced at CES 2005 (over 2
> years ago) to become TTM Nov 05, meaning the technology of everything on
> that set is about 2 years old.
>
> The HDMI 1.3 specs were approved mid 06, about six months ago. Chips for
> those specs started to appear several months later, toward the end of 06.
>
> Manufacturers are at the beginning of their effort implementing those chips
> in "some" future products, not retrofitting current products with HDMI
> chips.
>
> Simplay Labs as a new test facility was not necessarily created for just
> passing 1.3, but for general HDMI/HDCP compliance testing for more than one
> category in any kind of product, wires included, to benefit consumers
> regarding HDMI interoperability.
>
> Again, passing the test does not mean the product is automatically 1.3
> compliant or 1080p capable, or has Deep Color, or xvcolor, or lossless audio
> codecs capabilities, etc, it means it interoperate well with other HDMI
> suited products, it means that is better than no test, and better than no
> organization testing.
>
> Even after CES 2007 MOST manufacturers are still short in specifying
> correctly the version of HDMI they support and also the HDMI functionality
> features they implement of their equipment (like the above), so we are all
> in for another roller coaster ignorance sharing year (most probably years).
>
> And, as advance notice, please do not expect me to produce a flawless list
> of HDMI 1.3 products on the 2007 report, for 2 things:
>
> A) It is misleading if specifying only 1.3 and not the 1.3 related
> functionality implemented in the product, and
> B) After I started doing the list at CES, I found the hard way that it was
> an impossible task because most at CES could not be trusted, unless it was
> on a press release, besides, I already have all that information even before
> CES. Samsung was one of the companies that showed better effort on being
> specific across products.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now I have a question myself, maybe my first question since the magazine
> started in 1998:
>
> What would it take for people to read the very own articles and reports
> produced by the magazine?
>
> (Please, this is not a disrespectful or an ironic question, it is a reality,
> and issued with the intention to redirect efforts)
>
> A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
> B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
> articles to readerships.
> C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the eye
> and be intellectually empty?
> D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
> help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
> depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar questions?
> E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
> subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
> F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
> require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
> the content and wait until someone asks?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Mark Alford
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:28 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Sharp LC-65D90U
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard,
>
> Check the news section of the forum. Someone had posted an article about a
> month ago that gave the website for 1.3 certification. At that time there
> were less than ten pieces of equipment that had been verified as 1.3
> capable. I don't remember there being any products from Sharp on the list.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 1/28/07 10:55 PM, "Joe Hart" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>Considering the age of the model (it debuted in fall 2005) I would be
>>surprised.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Joe Hart
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>>Richard Fisher
>>Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:35 PM
>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>Can anybody confirm HDMI 1.3 on this display?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Richard Fisher
>>ISF and HAA certified
>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>Publisher
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>>day) send an email to:
>>
[email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>>day) send an email to:
>>
[email protected]
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
>
[email protected]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
>
[email protected]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
>
[email protected]
>
>
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected] 