Wed 5 Sep 2007
Many new full HD models have been introduced at IFA 2007 in Berlin.Sharp in particular has introduced a potential challenger to SED TV. The one inch thick, Sharp LCD TV is available in both 42 and 50 inches and states a contrast ratio of 100,000:1
Full specs and pricing aren’t available at this time. Check back for more information as it’s released. If the price is anywhere close to reasonable, this could throw another wrench into the SED works.
Technorati Tags: IFA 2007, Sharp, SED TV, Sharp LCD TV
September 5th, 2007 at 9:53 am
an LCD with a contrast ratio of 100,000:1 screams “Localized Dimming” and / or “Dynamic Ratio”.
The backlight(s) probably have a ratio of 100:1 and the LCD itself probably 1,000:1
Peak brightness is measured FULL / FULL while black-level is measured with the Backlight nearly off, while the LCD tries to block the rest.
SED offers a Static Ratio of 1m:1 not dynamic, don’t be fooled by the numbers.
In order for this to be a good figure, there would need to be a backlight for every sprite, or at least a backlight for every pixel. (2 – 6 million backlights on a 1080 set)
September 9th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Along with the improved methods for much faster refresh rates, that the manufacturers are using, that would be excellent. Seems hard to believe it could be that high even with LEDs though. The new Pioneer Plasmas claim a 16,000:1 contrast ratio but measured 1,300:1 in the lab (real-world) which is still excellent but no SED or CRT.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
The new Pioneer Plasmas measure 16,000:1 on the non-1080p sets and 20,000:1 on the 1080p’s
Those ratios are Static, and lab measured, not sure where you read 1,300:1 but it sounds like the measurement method was flawed or the post was pure hype to try to dis-credit plasma. Or measured externally in a bright room.
I measured my KURO with a medical grade photometer @ ~19,000:1 but the accuracy was limited by the black level coming back at 0.01 (the lowest it could measure…. had the system been rounding 0.009 to 0.001 that would explain the difference.
Furthermore, it seems people get easily confused by the various ways to measure contrast ratio.
The most meaningless ratio is the all on / all off method.
This typically yields the highest craziest numbers.
LCD’s can “cheat” by dimming the backlight
DLP’s LCOS’s etc, can cheat by using an iris to control the light.
Plasmas on the other hand can’t cheat this test, they have ACTIVE pixels not passive. There is no such thing as localized dimming or iris’ etc on Plasma, not only that but commanding all 2m pixels to peak brightness produces a non-real world strain on the power supply inhibiting peak brightness for a net result of a “below-real-world” measurement.
the more accurate method of measuring contrast is using the ANSI method, and measuring the bright area of the screen against a dark area. Passive displays using Localized dimming can still cheat this test however.
This test, the one that matters, is where Pioneer hit 20,000:1
Very impressive.
In a way…. you could say plasmas have 2m backlights with no active-filter. In theory you could probably mask an LCD filter over the top of a Plasma screen for an incredibly expensive incredibly high contrast ratio display.
20,000:1 * 1,000:1 or 20m:1
To be “cheap” newer LCD’s kinda do this but call it localized dimming and provide FAR FEWER backlights.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Just a correction:
“you could say plasmas have 2m backlights” should actually read:
“you could say 1080p 8th gen plasmas have 6m backlights”
September 17th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
You may have measured 19,000:1 but your measurement was flawed. Also keep in mind that a 720p display inherently has a better contrast ratio than a 1080p display [all other things being equal], although they are much closer with advanced technologies like Pioneer’s Crystal Emissive Layer technology. Nobody is confused about contrast ratio except maybe you and if you’re telling me that those measurements are ANSI contrast ratios then you are very confused. ANSI measurements are even lower. Home Cinema Choice’s lab measured the contrast ratio at 1,300:1. Their lab and technicians have measured hundreds of displays, how many have you measured. Furthermore, HI-FI News using Minolta’s super sensitive LS-100 measured a real-world contrast ratio of 8,682:1 and an ANSI ratio of 657:1, although not in a controlled environment (ie. a lab). CNET measured a contrast ratio of 3,075:1, What Video & High-Definition TV’s lab measured a 1,700:1 contrast ration. Hmmmm since non are even close to 16,000:1 I guess they’re all just trying to discredit the Kuro plasma even though they all loved it. How about you show me just one lab that has measured any Kuro to be the ratios that you say they are other than Pioneer.
I’m puzzled why you would think that techniques like dimming backlights and using variable irises are “cheating”. They are both just good engineering developed to improve contrast ratios. Is it “cheating” everytime an engineer developes a new technique in audio equipment, video equipment, medical equipment, computer systems, etc. to improve a process. After all nobody, including yourself, is calling Pioneer’s Deep Waffle Rib Cell Structure technology, their Cell Structure/Crystal Emissive Layer technology, their optical light sensor, their Direct Colour Filter or their new image processing engine “cheating” and they were developed to improve the contrast ratio too among other things.
“…not only that but commanding all 2m pixels to peak brightness produces a non-real world strain on the power supply inhibiting peak brightness for a net result of a “below-real-world†measurement.” That’s just nonsense. The engineers are quite capable of designing power supplies to produce the required power which they do, you’re only talking 350W max and that’s not all even across the pixels.
Plasmas have both active and passive filters and the only way you might possibly say that they have backlights (though incorrect by definition) is if you considered the UV primers to be backlighting. Actually, newer LCDs are using LEDs instead of lamps for their backlighting which gives far better control and contrast ratios not to mention no expensive lamps to replace.
The Pioneer Kuros are no doubt excellent displays and currently the best plasmas to date of any manufacturer, they do everything well. Although we haven’t seen anything yet, wait until Pioneer’s (and several other mfgs.) 10 Lumen Technology (actually up to 15 lumens/watt) comes out [supposedly in 2008]. Not only will we see a much improved contrast ratio over the Kuro but lower power usage (as much as 50% less) and even better motion performance, and far better brightness, black level, color, resolution, etc.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
“The Pioneer Kuros are no doubt excellent displays and currently the best plasmas to date of any manufacturer”
Are you sure about this? The Fujitsu Aviamo screens are rated better by everyone I know who has seen one.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
“Are you sure about this? The Fujitsu Aviamo screens are rated better by everyone I know who has seen one.”
Well that’s my opinion of course but many others agree including the reviewer for the review below. BTW, better than what? I have heard almost nothing about Fujitsu plasma displays and have not even seen one which seems strange to me if they’re really that good. But it doesn’t really matter what I or anyone else thinks, if the Fujitsu looks better to you [or your friends?] then that’s all that matters, so go for it.
http://www.hometheatermag.com/plasmadisplays/907kuro/