[jterp7]

if i remember correctly, their first prototype is $$$ and whopping 11.1"...i'd say we're quite a bit aways from mainstream prices

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterp7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif if i remember correctly, their first prototype is $$$ and whopping 11.1"...i'd say we're quite a bit aways from mainstream prices

Yeah....main thing holding us back with mainstream HDR is digital cameras. They've been stuck at a dynamic range of around 4096:1 for a few years. But if TV makers are continuing to bump up their range, that might pressure camera makers to do the same. Just a matter of time though.....

 

[jterp7]

Thats true... for me the Fuji S5 Pro comes to mind, which uses two 6.1MP sensors to get that increased range.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterp7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thats true... for me the Fuji S5 Pro comes to mind, which uses two 6.1MP sensors to get that increased range.

Yeah....even then, it's not a whole lot extra range. The Fuji sensor uses a normal sixed photosensor and then a smaller sized one right next to it. The thinking is that the smaller sized one will be less sensitive and will give you better detail in the dark areas of the photo. But it's still not addressing the issue of sensors having too little sensitivity. The main thing they have to do is boost the sensitivity of these analog sensors.....which I guess must be pretty hard to do. Seems like the latest crop of dSLRs just have upgraded processors that clean up the noise (they've bumped them from 12-bit to 14-bit)....not much difference with last generation dSLRs when it comes to sensors.

 

[Joshatdot]

what's HDR?

Oh yeah, OLEDs are awesome, I wish they got more attention in HDTVs & other displays (like DAPs, computer monitors)

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshatdot /img/forum/go_quote.gif what's HDR? Oh yeah, OLEDs are awesome, I wish they got more attention in HDTVs & other displays (like DAPs, computer monitors)

Get ready for some geek talk: being into 3D animation and digital photography, I can talk about the need for HDR for ages!! But the short of it is, HDR stands for High Dynamic Range.

In graphics, it means fancy file formats that store more "light intensity" information then what current monitors or paper can show. We're all used to working with 24bit or 32bit color files. They're both formats that use 8 bits of color information for each channel. Or 256 shades of tone that go from black to white. That's fine for showing the tonal range of a particular color, but it can't adequately capture the contrast range of a scene that has a light source in it. A good example would be taking a photograph indoors with a window being in the scene. With that scenario, your window would either be overexposed (and just show up as a block of white)....or if you expose for the window, the room would be underexposed (and just show up as a block of black). That's because the range from black to white is greater then what the range of your recording medium can capture.

Now currently, there are HDR file formats that go to 32 bits per channel....which gives you 4.29 trillion shades of tone. They're used for simulating natural light in 3D rendering programs, and also for certain medical diagnosis systems. Digital cameras can capture around 12bpc color, or 4096 shades of tone. That's still a bit less then what film cameras were able to take (which certain B&W emulsions could go beyond 20 stops/ or 20 bits). In photography, they run into a similar problem of having a HDR film emulsion that gets printed on a LDR (low dynamic range) paper print. So since the digital cameras aren't quite at the same dynamic range as film, photographers are always griping about how less flexible digital is compared to film still. But that should improve at some point.....and then that 1,000,000:1 TV set will really look gorgeous!!

 

[STSinNYC]

We have a Sony tube HDTV, it's excellent. One of my sisters & her husband just got a Sony HDTV 40 inch flat panel, it's also excellent.

 

[viggen]

I have a Panasonic GAOO from the early 90's. It is excellent too. The Protons of that era were very good too.

Whatever happened to Proscan? They just dissapeared...

 

[Joshatdot]

Dang, HRD stuffs would be awesome! I have over/under exposure issues with my digi-cam in odd lighting. HRD digi-cams would be awesome!

 

[gritzcolin]

Apart from the Pioneer Plasmas the best looking flat panel I saw when I bought my 40" Samsung for $869 woot. Was the 40" Mitsubishi. Lord was that a gorgeous picture and I'd have bought it if I could have afforded the extra $1000. So if you are looking at $1900 I would highly reccomend that, or see if you can find the last years Bravia on clearance somewhere, Sears had it for $1399 was originally a $2000 TV.

 

[ingwe]

Catching up on posts...

This last Black Friday, Fry's had the Samsung LN-T4069F for $1,399.00. My first HD-TV. Boy-o-boy-o-boy! I sit about 4.5-5 feet away. I loves it!

-m

 

[Joshatdot]

I got $'s to spend...but ATM i can only get one 'NICE' thing...HDTV, Flash DAP, Xbox 360, I need a muffler for my car, I want a new computer or a lappy....so many things I want!

 

[Earwax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshatdot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hmm...your 37" 1080p has much more contrast...nearly 1000+ more ratio (800:1 to 1700:1). But has 50 less brightness (500 cd/m2 to 450 cd/m2). I wish I could demo them side by side.

Do not get too hung up on contrast ratios. There is no real standard that manufacturers have to follow in how they measure contrast ratio. When you seen widely different number like those above chances are one of them is using dynamic contrast ratio and the other is using native contrast ratio. Native contrast ratio would be best to go by because it doesn't include the effect of changing the brightness control as dynamic does.

Also, stay far away from plasma, they have a much shorter working life than LCD screens and they are more prone to image burn-in.

 

[mofonyx]

Back home in Malaysia my full HD set up is:

Sharp Aquos LC46A83M
SHARP......be sharp

The best LCD screen out there, no question, from the people who came up with the technology.. you can't be wrong!

I have spoken to a few and seen for myself, Samsung LCD TVs are a bad idea

The Sharp comes closest to organic colours of a Plasma screen at a fraction of the cost!

Energy Take System for full 5.1 HD sound.

PS3 as source

Pioneer VSX-LX50 as the HD amp
VSX-LX50 Pioneer Home Cinema Amplifiers - Audio - Video

 

[terrymx]

Useless thoughts of the Samsung and Sony 120hz 52" Lcd after saw from several stores:

My brother and his wife wanted to buy a large screen tv. And I had to kept persuading them to get something decent, and not a jvc or magnavox.

I looked at the 60hz samsung 46" online that has nearly perfect review, and we were going to get that until I saw it in real life and wasn't impressed since the color transition was not smooth, but it could be the signal that they are feeding. I made them look at the Sony Xbr 120hz or Samsung 5217f 120hz.

-The samsung has the best contrast ratio (in the market right now i think), the color is too saturated to be natural but can be adjusted to pretty decent (it seem that I heard more than one person said this). But the way it is designed made it very easy to read small text and pick out small details. The Samsung is 70lbs without stand, one person can maybe carry it.

-The Sony on the other hand has a very soft and smooth coloring, and the post processing diffuse glow, sort of like what they use for their digital camera. The only thing I don't like about the Sony is the non-glossy dark-gray "poked holes speaker frame" surrounding the screen, most of their frames remind me of buick cars, ie bulky. But it is I think 10lbs heavier and maybe more durable than the Samsung.

I loaded up some mp3 and hires jpg into the USB flashdrive and connected to the Samsung. Wow the speakers sounded pretty good for tv (hidden in the bottom edge of the tv) that I told them they don't need to buy any new speakers for it. Seeing Oblivion's screenshot on the screen made me orgasm in my pants, most amazing/beautiful thing I've ever seen. If they can display that image in motion then this tv is capable of extreme details and color smoothness if the signal is very high quality.

I think the trend is choosing between natural of color vs detail contrast when you choose between all the Samsung vs Sony. For soft on the eye coloring and relaxing watching, maybe the Sony is better choice, without editing nor further work. Maybe using better component video cables and a good source can help the Samsung color saturation problem. The details are nearly identical between these two. Looks like they both use the same manufacturered screen, with different video processing unit. I heard there should be firmware update for Samsung to fix some issues too.

They're trying to get a good deal on it since they can't get the store to match the online price, or wait past Christmas to see if the price go down. I'm not sure it would since it's still a new model. Anyway they wanted to spend $1300 in the first place onthe 52" Vizio, but now because of me they will spend nearly $3k.

I am interested in the new LED technology and OLED that will probably replace LCD and Plasma, and wouldn't forget about looking at that too if I were going to buy a new TV.