p m said:Scott, your bullet points are about emissive displays being better than LCD transmissive displays. It may be an esoteric distinction, because LCD is pretty much the mainstay for a transmissive display, but it is not the only technology (part of my work was to develop a wide-field-of-view optical switch with response time less than a nanosecond).
Also, don't assume emissive displays have wide viewing angle because the emitters are isotropic - they are not. And contrast ratio is both overrated as a preference factor (because of stray light) and limited (because of anti-glare coatings).
For the practical purposes, I don't understand the nature of burn-in pattern in plasma screens. I thought this was something done away with - apparently not.
EDIT: looks like OLED TVs have come down in price to just somewhat higher than LCD models, that does it for me.
Burn in can never be done away with completely. It was the same with a CRT. We are at a point now, though, that a top tier Plasma isn't really any worse than a late model CRT was in that respect. It's just that with all the LCD computer monitors out there, people have forgotten about burn in. That can leave people to complain about image retention, which can most often be cured within the televisions utilities menu, or by playing something that takes up the whole screen for a few minutes.
Field of view issues have similarly been reduced in the LCD market. They are still there, just like burn in on a plasma, but not to a great degree.
The point is: If you want to leave a PC desktop on your monitor, completely idle for hours on end, you will need to use a screen saver, and if you've got a very wide viewing room or an expensive in-home theater, those little field of view issues can upset all that work.
Those are indeed deciding factors. I know someone who doesn't have HD programming, and leaves his television on from 8am to 1am every day, to keep the dogs company. Leaving that 4:3 crap on the screen fucking eternally is going to burn something in no matter what you do. Yeah, I know you can expand it, but he won't do it.
I made sure he bought an LCD...
So, those are still points worth noting.
If you want to get into what makes the point about movie theaters different, that's a different can of worms, and I just can't keep that post short while getting the point across.
A movie theater uses one of two technologies: Film projection or DLP projection. Each is vastly different than your personal display, and one cannot effectively defend an LCD by referencing movie theaters, no matter how much we discuss the apparent similarities.
Knewsom:
I've got 20/10 in both eyes, as well as a nasty case of hypersensitivity to light. Calibration is a bit of a unique process for me, and I've got to have a damn good display to pull it off. I can do a crossword by the bleed from an LCD displaying a black image in a totally dark room. The idle illumination from a plasma annoys me, as well, but not nearly as much.
That's why I was pissed that I couldn't afford a Kuro... :banghead:
I'm going to have to compromise one way or another, though, and I don't want a projector. Even if I did, they merely provide me with different irritations.
Sucks having eyes that sharp, doesn't it?
The very tiny stuff doesn't matter to most people, but my visual world is different than theirs. I live in a world of thunderous light and splitting headaches during the day. I've got many expensive (and some silly looking) solutions for getting through the day. Without those, I'm a fairly nocturnal creature.
The light overpowers any of my problems with cell arrays in plasma displays. It's never going to be perfect for me.
And I know LED illumination generally comes from the sides.
Cheers,
Kennith