Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: bill@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:34:46 GMT
On 22 Aug 2005 10:52:27 GMT, mike ring
<mike.ring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Kennedy McEwen <rkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>news:KEyMYBCdvYCDFwGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>>>
>> Whilst gamma was originally intended to compensate for the response
>> characteristics of a typical CRT, by one of those amazing coincidences
>> it is almost exactly the correct function to compensate for the
>> perceptual response of the human eye - the eye is close to the inverse
>> response of the CRT.
>
>I was brought up in them days, even to messing with the transfer
>characteristic of image orthicons
>>
><snip explanatio>
>
>but what I don't understand is why flat screens seem so black crushed.
>
I have a feeling that it's probably marketing. If you look at the
default settings for most modern TVs the contrast is way too high and
the brightness too low giving a nastyy combination of crushed blacks
and blown out highlights, however it gives an initial impression of
sharp bright pictures to the uncritical eye. CF the Sony Trinitron
effect; when Sony introduced the Trinitron most ordinary viewers said
that the picture was better than normal TVs, because the tube could
give a brighter image. In other respects, like resolution the average
Trinitron was worse than a standard dotty shadowmask.
A couple of years ago I bought a projector. The factory setup gives
terrible black crushing; in order to get a decent picture you have to
get into the menus and tweak the gamma to the opposite end of the
range from the factory setting. Again I assume it was set like that to
give an initial impression of sharp contrasty pictures.
>(which is a bit of a laugh because my Philips abortion, among it's other
>lacks, can't get anywhwere near black anyway)
>
>But on the grey backgound, I seem to be totally unable to get anything
>between alleged black and low mid tones.
>
>Is this a funtion of all LCDs? and will it always be.
>
>IOW, I guess I'm asking if future pictures will always be as bad?
>
I haven't seen a good flat panel display yet, but they do seem to be
improving, and I would expect them to eventually get to an acceptable
quality level.
Bill
.
- References:
- Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: Staiger
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: Stephen
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: Roderick Stewart
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: davidrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: JC
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: Roderick Stewart
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: Kennedy McEwen
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: mike ring
- Why interlaced HDTV?
- Prev by Date: Re: What Have 701 & 702 Carried?
- Next by Date: Re: What Have 701 & 702 Carried?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- Next by thread: Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading