Discussion in 'Plasma TVs' started by theios, Apr 14, 2005.
What's the plsama with the highrst number of colors?
By the way: PANASONIC or JVC?
Panasonic PV500 - 8.6 billion
I cant find information on how many colours the UK JVC displays on the JVC website
On the USA Models its 16.77 million (RGB each of 256 levels)
Panasonic say on some new models 3.6 billion-8.6 billion colours for darker parts
But the highest number I have seen claimed is Hitachi 42PD7200
Hitachi say 68.6 billion colours
WARNING PERSONAL OPINION WITHOUT LINKS TO BACK UP BELOW
The amount of colours is only one factor for good picture quality and as with contrast ratio and brightness and amount of pixels these specifications should not be the only reason for buying a plasma .Picture quality to your eyes should in my unsubstantiated opinion be highest on your list.
so is it better a panny with only 8,6millions nut 8th gen display, best constrast and HD bla bla bla, or a JVC with more colors and HD?
The panny PV500 isn't out yet, but people with the SD 8th gen PV50B seem very happy with it.
The 'how many colours' debate is rather like the 'how many megapixels' debate in the digital camera realm.
With cameras, the megapixels are irrelevant if the optics are sub-standard, and with plasma the number of colours is irrelevant if other factors degrade the picture (such as overly-enthusiastic digital processing).
My strong advice would be to totally ignore manufacturers' claims of contrast ratios and displayable colours and go view the screens yourself, head to head if at all possible. That is the only way to make a decision.
ok, I agree, but there must be a brand better than others.
I mean, being the budget not a problem, should I buy a panny, a jvc or an lg?
Your asking everyone to rub your Crystal Ball
There are LOTS of NEW displays about to launch - how they will fair with a range of Input signals is anyone's guess; give it another couple of months and a whole heap of test and set-up time and there will be plenty of advice on which of the 'Next Generation' devices deserves your attention.
Please note the maximum number of colours produced figures only apply to one Input signal on the Display - the maximum number of colours reduces when you input differing video signals as the processor has to work harder in other areas such as scaling and de-interlacing and reduces its headroom in the colour processing department.
Possibly the best all round performer to put you money on NOW, if your keen, is the NEW Fujitsu XHA40US series - the 42" and 50" both produce a mighty fine image and are 720P(50) and 1080i(50) compatible on HDMI.
Is it relevant that a screen can display x billion colours when the human eye can,at best,differentiate a few million colours?
A wise man once told me when i enquired about the plasma colour wars
"I always think of it as more like oversampling. With the 68 billion colours able to be identified and processed, the x million colours finally chosen to display the image with are going to be more accurate as they are chosen from a larger pallete.
There again 6 million or 6 billion colours, the proof is always in the pudding not on the spec sheet..."
and also as i suggested
The amount of colours is only one factor for good picture quality and as with contrast ratio and brightness and amount of pixels these specifications should not be the only reason for buying a plasma .Picture quality to YOUR EYES(as it is you who watches it) should in my opinion be highest on your list.
Yes - you'll not be 'counting' individual colours though you will notice far less 'banding' on a Display with a higher number of displayable colours than you will on a Display which can produce less colours.
Sit and watch a Panasonic PWD vs.PHD for a while and you'll start to notice the PWD produces far more banding than the PHD; they use the same pixel array technology with different processors and produce differing maximum numbers of colours.
i'm pretty sure the human eye can only see 16,000 colours.
I think it's a bit misleading to say that there are so many different colours, for several reasons:
It's clear that the big headline number comes from multiplying the binary exponents for each colour. For example, where you typically have 8 bits resolution per colour, there will be 2 to the power of 8, that is 256 levels of luminous intensity of that colour. There are three colours, and 256 cubed is 16.7 million. Bingo, 16.7 million different colours for most plasmas. Except that it's not just different colours - it's all the different brightness levels, too. You can have the same colour, which comes from the relative RGB proportions, but at lots of different brighnesses - so I think it's double counting.
To have 1 billion colours, you simply have 10 bits processing per colour, so 1000 cubed.... Only thing is, there are not 10 bits there in the first place, so there is not that much information to reproduce. So those additional 983 million colours have to be invented. Moreover, I doubt that anyone (pleased to be proved wrong) in this country has any AV kit that can maintain 10 bits/colour resolution THROUGHOUT the whole signal chain. It generally drops down to 8 bits somewhere along the line. In the DVD itself, for example.......
Finally, we all know that plasmas compress the greysacle terribly because of their limited contrast range. If there are billions of colours, then much of them will be lost at the top and especially bottom of the luminous intensity range. Plasmas gamma curves tend to be exaggerated in the mid-range to make them visually punchier and more dynamic than they actually are. Hence ISF calibration usually winds the contrast right back.
I used to be an audiophile, and developed a well proven rule of thum: sound quality is inversely proportional to the specifications...............
Not considering the spectrum (bandwidth) of colours the human eye can see for a few moments...
The Panasonic new generation Vieras can produce 3.6 billion colours full time, with 8.6 billion including darker parts some of the time (not sure how this works but, this shows that they have better appeal for greys/blacks and not enough for other colours). The Panasonic wins on contrast ratios, giving the impression of a better picture quality - in fact, the human eyes are tricked into believing this. Don't get me wrong, we have been die-hard Panasonic users for more years than I can count. But, the technology is not leading and certainly not as reliable.
My father works for J*C - middle initial left out intentionally. As a quality inspectorate for components and other parts, he is involved with lead tech's comparing many other brands. J*C can use 6 billion colours full-time within their plasma TV's. But, even he is not convinced about J*C plasma TV's just yet.
Pioneer 5th Gen plasma TV's appear visually (screen and display surround) to be the cutting edge currently in terms of viewing quality - I guess, this is why we bought one, after seeing the differences between the Panasonic, Sony, Philips and Pioneer - 6 billion colours full-time and high-definition ready - it has the HDMI connections and they actually display true HD.
The question is - which manufacturer can amalgamate all factors to build the best quality plasma? Answer, I believe is - None! If all factors were catered for, we would not be buying Plasma TV's for a 2 to 5 thousand pounds - rather, we'd be spending perhaps 5 or 10 times more!
Best rule to use: Whatever looks the best to you (and your family), buy that Plasma TV
Best of luck,
To make a good buying decision
This is what I would suggest if you have a conventional TV of some description and access to some sort of DVD player.
I would first buy a copy of a Video calibration DVD such as
Digital video essentials
My favourite is Digital video essentials
Listen to the descriptions of each setting and the over all explanation (this will take you hours and hours) of what makes good picture quality and adjust the set you have. Once you have a full understanding of these settings you are better equipped to know what to look for in a new display
Then watch on your newly calibrated TV a film DVD which has good picture quality to your eyes and watch standard TV programmes
Then arrange to test all the Plasmas( in your price range regardless of brand,to keep an open mind .Test them if possible side by side but this is not always available) take in to the stores your DVD player, Test disc and DVD film and adjust all the settings so you know if the settings have been set to impress .Watch TV through each plasma. Make sure you use the connection method you wish to use when you get it home.
Then I would buy the one I though was the best picture quality.
Once home I would use the test disc to set it up the best a amateur can and if I could afford it I would get a ISF tech in to calibrate it further.
Ok ok, slow down...
Let's start from the beginning.
Actually let's forget the colours...
I've been reading that Panny's plasma are the best, especially the new HD 8th generation screens.
Now i'm reading that JVC and PIONEER are very good as well, meybe even better?
I'm just trying to shorten the listen of brands to 3 or 4, and possibly for each brand to 2 model (37").
Could someone suggest a list of brands I should consider or a list of brands I shouldn't?
Try the Panasonic TH37pv500
8.6 billion colours.
Problem is Im told theres only two in existence in the uk till later on this year.
Yeah,red and blue
Huh? oh very funny. TWO PANELS.
sorry but I didn't get it...
the pV500 is on my list, but it's nout out yet here in belgium
That isn't true, though. Numbers like "a few million" tend to be derived from colour charts printed on pieces of paper. Colours on paper are produced by mixing differing ratios of yellow, cyan and magenta ink (and usually black as well). If you do that and offer a person a piece of paper with two regions of colour next to each other, and ask them if they can spot the join, then you find there are, indeed, a few million distinguishable colours. (I.e. if the ink ratios are close enough, there's no visible dividing line).
However, the number of colours you get out of an experiment like this is strongly dependent on things like illumination level. Once you veer away from ink on paper (where the brightest white you can have is "no ink at all") and start thinking instead about coloured lights, everything changes, because suddenly you suddenly have a far greater dynamic range available. If you start from black, and move up the greyscale till you get to "blank sheet of paper" you have to go a lot farther up the scale to reach "switched on light bulb".
So the total number of colours the eye can perceive (for example, out of doors on a sunny day) is more than "a few million". 24-bit colour was chosen as the standard not just because of the limits of the eye, but because of the limits of display technology (and also because computers like things to be in multiples of 8). If a monitor screen could be as bright as the sun appears to be, you'd need more accuracy.
This is actually quite a complex subject. For example, if a colour is being generated as a combination of red, green and blue, the eye is more sensitive to variations in the green than it is to red or blue differences. It's also more sensitive to variations in brightness than variations in colour. (This is why MPEG2 video preserves much more of the original luminance information than it does chrominance).
An actual MPEG2 video stream has (I think) only 24-bit accuracy. That's 8 bits (just 255 possible values) for each of the red, green and blue components. It certainly wouldn't hurt for a screen to have 9- or 10-bit accuracy for things like scaling operations: if the picture on the screen is twice as many pixels wide as the original image, then this allows you to put a new pixel between two original pixels that really is half way between them in colour, even if the originals differ only by the minimum amount allowed. Having 9 or 10 bits also guarantees that any calculation done will always be accurate to at least 8 bits, even allowing for rounding errors. If you only deal with 8-bit values, then you cannot guarantee 8-bit accuracy.
Not to mention some pretty dark glasses
I'm still not convinced,despite the arguements,that a screen with 2x billion colours is necessarily better than a screen with x billion colours,or that my eyes can really tell the difference in real world conditions.Ultimately I agree that the answer is always to view a screen showing whatever it is you are most likely to be viewing every day and buy the one you like.
Well, forget about how many billion colours it is, the size of the numbers makes it hard to understand what's happening. Concentrate on the number of bits available to represent red, green and blue values. There may be some benefit to calculating and displaying 9 or 10 bits rather than just 8.
Alternatively, ask yourself if only 254 possible grey-shades between absolute black and the brightest possible white is enough.
It is, of course, true that a screen with "more colours" isn't necessarily better than one with fewer: there are countless other factors involved in whether or not one screen is better than the other. I'm just saying don't assume that 8 bits are automatically as good as 10.
NicholasB, I think you're absolutely right. Chasing billions of colours in itself is pointless because the information is not there in the first place. What you can benefit from is more resolution in the processing chain. That will mean that the original 8 bits are more likely to be reproduced correctly by the display. Does anyone remember that CD players started using oversampling a long time ago? You can't invent information that wasn't recorded in the first place, but you can protect what was. Umpteen billion colours sounds much less impressive than "just" 256 levels - but remember that the top and bottom few levels are not used by video anyway, so it's even less than that.
I guess most of you guys never owned a 1st or 2nd generation Display - 16.7 million colours made outdoor panoramic scenes look like a Test pattern
Its not just the colour range.
Its the black/gray range.
Its the sub pixel controll.
Its the motion pic disturbance reduction.
Its the new deep black filter.
Its just an amazing tv.
Separate names with a comma.