On Jun 20, 12:28 am, "Keith G" wrote:

IMO, the HDMI/ordinary DVD beat the HDDVD clip (Italian Job II) hands
down - there was equal sharpness in both images but the HDDVD picture
was much darker with less 'luminosity'. The one Bluray clip (Philips
promo 'Follow The Blue Line') was much better than before, but I think
the clip probably sucks anyway - there was still the 'sandy' appearance
on skin tones and the 'orange peel' effect was still apparent. Pump this
digital photo I took of the screen up to get an idea - eyes, nose and
mouth areas, in particular:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Bluray%20Pic.jpg


That looks utterly abysmal. Is it a true representation of how it
looks on the screen, too?

I've been increasingly unimpressed by the hi-def images I've been
seeing too - not dissimilar to how you describe things and the image
you've linked to. So much so, I've given up on the current "state of
the art" and picked up (well, with the help of a couple of other
strapping blokes!) a Toshiba 36" CRT for £125. Whilst far from
perfect, it beats the pants off most of the HD images I've seen in
shop displays and at friends and family. I really had high hopes for
HD too.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 20, 12:28 am, "Keith G" wrote:

IMO, the HDMI/ordinary DVD beat the HDDVD clip (Italian Job II) hands
down - there was equal sharpness in both images but the HDDVD picture
was much darker with less 'luminosity'. The one Bluray clip (Philips
promo 'Follow The Blue Line') was much better than before, but I think
the clip probably sucks anyway - there was still the 'sandy'
appearance
on skin tones and the 'orange peel' effect was still apparent. Pump
this
digital photo I took of the screen up to get an idea - eyes, nose and
mouth areas, in particular:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Bluray%20Pic.jpg


That looks utterly abysmal. Is it a true representation of how it
looks on the screen, too?


Not quite - it's a digital photo of a 'freeze frame' so it hasn't been
done any favours, but I think it clearly shows the origin of the 'sandy'
effect on skintones in the (promotional) clip I saw.



I've been increasingly unimpressed by the hi-def images I've been
seeing too - not dissimilar to how you describe things and the image
you've linked to. So much so, I've given up on the current "state of
the art" and picked up (well, with the help of a couple of other
strapping blokes!) a Toshiba 36" CRT for £125. Whilst far from
perfect, it beats the pants off most of the HD images I've seen in
shop displays and at friends and family. I really had high hopes for
HD too.


Superficial sharpness and extreme contrast might be immediately
impressive (much like the *wow* factor of certain speakers) but they do
not make a really satisfying or realistic image, in my book. I have
never liked the 'digital look' which is deathly compared with a good
'analogue' picture and LCD screens only make it worse, from what I have
seen so far!

I suppose where it comes to the fore is in the depiction of certain
'computer generated' imagery where there is no *natural* look to worry
about...??

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 01:07:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
On Jun 20, 12:28 am, "Keith G" wrote:

IMO, the HDMI/ordinary DVD beat the HDDVD clip (Italian Job II) hands
down - there was equal sharpness in both images but the HDDVD picture
was much darker with less 'luminosity'. The one Bluray clip (Philips
promo 'Follow The Blue Line') was much better than before, but I think
the clip probably sucks anyway - there was still the 'sandy'
appearance
on skin tones and the 'orange peel' effect was still apparent. Pump
this
digital photo I took of the screen up to get an idea - eyes, nose and
mouth areas, in particular:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Bluray%20Pic.jpg


That looks utterly abysmal. Is it a true representation of how it
looks on the screen, too?


Not quite - it's a digital photo of a 'freeze frame' so it hasn't been
done any favours, but I think it clearly shows the origin of the 'sandy'
effect on skintones in the (promotional) clip I saw.



I've been increasingly unimpressed by the hi-def images I've been
seeing too - not dissimilar to how you describe things and the image
you've linked to. So much so, I've given up on the current "state of
the art" and picked up (well, with the help of a couple of other
strapping blokes!) a Toshiba 36" CRT for £125. Whilst far from
perfect, it beats the pants off most of the HD images I've seen in
shop displays and at friends and family. I really had high hopes for
HD too.

CRTs still beat the crap out of LCD or plasma when it comes to
reproducing colour. The flat screen stuff always looks like the colour
has been laid on afterwards as a sort of molten plasticky layer, with
scant regard for fine tone - a bit like a child's first go at painting
by numbers. CRTs make a vastly better job of this.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 01:07:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
On Jun 20, 12:28 am, "Keith G" wrote:

IMO, the HDMI/ordinary DVD beat the HDDVD clip (Italian Job II) hands
down - there was equal sharpness in both images but the HDDVD picture
was much darker with less 'luminosity'. The one Bluray clip (Philips
promo 'Follow The Blue Line') was much better than before, but I think
the clip probably sucks anyway - there was still the 'sandy'
appearance
on skin tones and the 'orange peel' effect was still apparent. Pump
this
digital photo I took of the screen up to get an idea - eyes, nose and
mouth areas, in particular:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Bluray%20Pic.jpg


That looks utterly abysmal. Is it a true representation of how it
looks on the screen, too?


Not quite - it's a digital photo of a 'freeze frame' so it hasn't been
done any favours, but I think it clearly shows the origin of the 'sandy'
effect on skintones in the (promotional) clip I saw.



I've been increasingly unimpressed by the hi-def images I've been
seeing too - not dissimilar to how you describe things and the image
you've linked to. So much so, I've given up on the current "state of
the art" and picked up (well, with the help of a couple of other
strapping blokes!) a Toshiba 36" CRT for £125. Whilst far from
perfect, it beats the pants off most of the HD images I've seen in
shop displays and at friends and family. I really had high hopes for
HD too.

CRTs still beat the crap out of LCD or plasma when it comes to
reproducing colour. The flat screen stuff always looks like the colour
has been laid on afterwards as a sort of molten plasticky layer, with
scant regard for fine tone - a bit like a child's first go at painting
by numbers. CRTs make a vastly better job of this.


I haven't seen anything in the shops as yet that is as good as our 10
year old B&O running off analogue PAL despite its limitations especially
compared to anything Digital SD available to Joe pubic;!....
d


--
Tony Sayer

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 01:07:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:



Not quite - it's a digital photo of a 'freeze frame' so it hasn't been
done any favours, but I think it clearly shows the origin of the
'sandy'
effect on skintones in the (promotional) clip I saw.




But not this bit:


I've been increasingly unimpressed by the hi-def images I've been
seeing too - not dissimilar to how you describe things and the image
you've linked to. So much so, I've given up on the current "state of
the art" and picked up (well, with the help of a couple of other
strapping blokes!) a Toshiba 36" CRT for £125. Whilst far from
perfect, it beats the pants off most of the HD images I've seen in
shop displays and at friends and family. I really had high hopes for
HD too.

CRTs still beat the crap out of LCD or plasma when it comes to
reproducing colour. The flat screen stuff always looks like the colour
has been laid on afterwards as a sort of molten plasticky layer, with
scant regard for fine tone - a bit like a child's first go at painting
by numbers. CRTs make a vastly better job of this.



I don't even like 'flat screens' on small tellies - they look *pushed
in* to me....

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 01:07:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


CRTs still beat the crap out of LCD or plasma when it comes to
reproducing colour. The flat screen stuff always looks like the colour
has been laid on afterwards as a sort of molten plasticky layer, with
scant regard for fine tone - a bit like a child's first go at painting
by numbers. CRTs make a vastly better job of this.

They also avoid the 'crinkly' effect of the display pixels being obviously
visible as a set of rectangles. Personally, I find this very uncomfortable
to view. I've also continued with a CRT monitor on my computer as a result
of finding this effect hurts my eyes.

Difficult to say more about the displays since whenever I go into a shop
that has them, they seem to be set up with the contrast, brightness, and
colour wound up to max, regardless of display type. The result is uniformly
dreadful.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:03:09 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 01:07:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


CRTs still beat the crap out of LCD or plasma when it comes to
reproducing colour. The flat screen stuff always looks like the colour
has been laid on afterwards as a sort of molten plasticky layer, with
scant regard for fine tone - a bit like a child's first go at painting
by numbers. CRTs make a vastly better job of this.

They also avoid the 'crinkly' effect of the display pixels being obviously
visible as a set of rectangles. Personally, I find this very uncomfortable
to view. I've also continued with a CRT monitor on my computer as a result
of finding this effect hurts my eyes.

Difficult to say more about the displays since whenever I go into a shop
that has them, they seem to be set up with the contrast, brightness, and
colour wound up to max, regardless of display type. The result is uniformly
dreadful.


That used to be the condition of most domestic TVs when the colour,
brightness and contrast controls were available as a set of knobs on
the front panel.

It still amazes me in shops when you see an array of LCD and plasma
TVs just what a vast range of colour balances there is. They almost
look like they are showing different scenes. I don't know what
standards the manufacturers are using when setting up, but they are
obviously all different. Interestingly Sony have maintained their
insistence that the world is purple - a hangover from their CRT days.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:03:09 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 01:07:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


CRTs still beat the crap out of LCD or plasma when it comes to
reproducing colour. The flat screen stuff always looks like the colour
has been laid on afterwards as a sort of molten plasticky layer, with
scant regard for fine tone - a bit like a child's first go at painting
by numbers. CRTs make a vastly better job of this.

They also avoid the 'crinkly' effect of the display pixels being obviously
visible as a set of rectangles. Personally, I find this very uncomfortable
to view. I've also continued with a CRT monitor on my computer as a result
of finding this effect hurts my eyes.

Difficult to say more about the displays since whenever I go into a shop
that has them, they seem to be set up with the contrast, brightness, and
colour wound up to max, regardless of display type. The result is
uniformly
dreadful.


That used to be the condition of most domestic TVs when the colour,
brightness and contrast controls were available as a set of knobs on
the front panel.

It still amazes me in shops when you see an array of LCD and plasma
TVs just what a vast range of colour balances there is. They almost
look like they are showing different scenes. I don't know what
standards the manufacturers are using when setting up, but they are
obviously all different. Interestingly Sony have maintained their
insistence that the world is purple - a hangover from their CRT days.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

The professional world isn't immune to fiddling with colour:-

Barco used to make some of the best Grade 1 professional picture monitors.
Their first generation had the colour controls on a panel at the side of the
screen, and were available to anyone to fiddle. They were capable of being
set up superbly, but always had a reputation for being unstable, needing
constant correction. When they brought out the MkII version, everyone said
how much better this one was, much more stable, and could be left for long
periods without adjustment. All Barco did was redesign the monitor
cosmetically, putting the controls inside a locked drawer, the key normally
held by the Engineering Department. Sudden improvement in stability.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

"Serge Auckland" wrote


The professional world isn't immune to fiddling with colour:-

Barco used to make some of the best Grade 1 professional picture
monitors.


Their projectors are none too shabby, neither....


Their first generation had the colour controls on a panel at the side
of the screen, and were available to anyone to fiddle. They were
capable of being set up superbly, but always had a reputation for
being unstable, needing constant correction. When they brought out the
MkII version, everyone said how much better this one was, much more
stable, and could be left for long periods without adjustment. All
Barco did was redesign the monitor cosmetically, putting the controls
inside a locked drawer, the key normally held by the Engineering
Department. Sudden improvement in stability.


My dear old grandfather was always adjusting his watch (too slow, too
fast, whatever) - when he died, the watch suddenly started to keep good
time!

(An *eyesight* problem, I suspect! ;-)