Tweet LED TV it's a hoax.

Just for curiosity... I want to call attention the the big hoax of the home video technology.

How many of you know that LED TV are not really LED TV?
It's just a damn LCD iluminatesd by white LEDs. In other words, LED TV are LCD TVs, with the same anoying limited angle of view of the problematic LCD technology.

Edge Lit LED TV are also darkers in the center than in the sides, for the most slim models, because it's iluminated by white leds around the edges, and a difusor difuses the light, that get less intense in the center



. And the models with white LEDS in the background (Local-dimming), despite of large contrast can create distortions cause it's not one white led for each LCD pixels. The different light level (trick to get more contrast ratio) have only a fraction of the resolution of the LCD pixels.




The called "modern technology", just created large slim displays, that only the people who are far, or in case of be near stay in the center of the display, will enjoy some quality.

Industry always want to make fool of consumer .

If you Google the term "LED backlit LCD" you get over 18 million hits. Not a very efficient "hoax," it seems.

In my contry they just call TV LED (Led TV), and most people do not know it's just iluminated by LED.
At least here, it's a very big hoax.

If you Google the term "LED backlit LCD" you get over 18 million hits. Not a very efficient "hoax," it seems.

At the very least, it's false advertising. I have never seen anything but "LED TV" on boxes for LED-backlit LCDs, and I can't say that I've seen any mention of LCD on those sets, either.

[Mike Gebert]

So they no longer have little people inside the box acting the stories out?

No, thanks to the politically correct fashion fever, it's a forbidden practice today.

So they no longer have little people inside the box acting the stories out?

The near perfect Monitors and TVs will be OLED. There are some few models on market, but they cost a fortune.

[Mike Gebert]

I saw one at a Sony store. It looked fantastic, but you know, any technology looks great when it's HD at only 11" wide or something. When size goes up and prices drop, maybe.

About resoltuion advance... I saw a video about Sharp introduce a 4K reolution 16:9 TV, but I don't think it was OLED.

If with actual HD TV female hosters and actress get crazy about their wrinkles appear, what wil they say with super HD.

The HD broadcast in my city leave digital artefacts if we look in huge screen.
How is HD, in artefacts aspects, for USA and Europe ?


Today we found the atom is too big and the light speed too slow. The atom barrier already became a problem to evolution of processors, and light speed it's not fast enought for some real time things for one side of Earth globe to another. You can't play a "virtual orchestra" with member from different continents, due latence became a problem.

I saw one at a Sony store. It looked fantastic, but you know, any technology looks great when it's HD at only 11" wide or something. When size goes up and prices drop, maybe.

[Christopher Jacobs]

About resoltuion advance... I saw a video about Sharp introduce a 4K reolution 16:9 TV, but I don't think it was OLED.

If with actual HD TV female hosters and actress get crazy about their wrinkles appear, what wil they say with super HD.

The HD broadcast in my city leave digital artefacts if we look in huge screen.
How is HD, in artefacts aspects, for USA and Europe ?


Today we found the atom is too big and the light speed too slow. The atom barrier already became a problem to evolution of processors, and light speed it's not fast enought for some real time things for one side of Earth globe to another. You can't play a "virtual orchestra" with member from different continents, due latence became a problem.

(Darn those natural laws of physics! They just don't let you do anything you really want! Gravity is another one I always hated!)

The HDTV picture that I've seen on cable and over the air is usually substantially sharper than the old standard NTSC broadcasts were (and digital standard-definition is usually worse than analog NTSC), but with any digital broadcasts whenever there's a lot of motion on screen the picture degrades rapidly, typically with what looks like a swarm of insects around whatever's moving. Then HD doesn't look any better and sometimes looks worse than SD. I've found sports broadcasts all but unwatchable on broadcast HD. Movies and TV shows look pretty good (especially talk shows where all they do is sit around talking), but Blu-rays and theatrical HD from a hard drive is so much better that I won't pay a premium cable surcharge just to get more HD channels than the ones in the basic cable. I'll just buy the Blu-ray, usually after reading reviews to be sure that the digital noise reduction and edge enhancement are at a minimum. I still favor theatrical screenings that use 35mm film when they're available (recently saw WAR HORSE and THE DESCENDENTS on 35mm), as 2k digital theatres, though the actual images usually look good, appear virtually identical to a good Blu-ray, and like Blu-rays, often exhibit jagged diagonals on any printed titles.

As far as how regular LCD monitors and LCD monitors backlit by LEDs perform, from various store demonstrations I prefer the standard LCDs, and LCD projectors are far preferable to consumer DLP projectors that use one chip and a spinning color wheel. If three-chip DLP projectors get cheaper, they might become a home option.

"Truth in Advertising" in the US at least, usually requires fine print, and it wasn't long before I discovered that the so-called LED TV screens merely used LEDs as the lighting source behind an LCD screen. Using red, green, and blue LEDs for the pixels seems more practical for those giant sporting stadium video displays, and far beyond the pricing of consumers.

Here a SD digital cable TV (mini sat parabolic) looks worse than VHS. No kiding. I recorded a VHS in SP speed from a good DVD mastered from a rock Show recorded for TV in 1988, and I compared the VHS to several channels of the digital sat TV company. The VSH winned!!!
This digital sat TV company started with few channels, and was very acceptable in quality. But they began to put more and more channels, without expand the bandrange of signal, so the bitrate for channel got progressivelly worse.


I think other problem is that digital broadcast needs to encode in real time, for example in a TV NEWs, and real time encoding don't compare in quality to long planned encoding of Blu ray.
Even in cases when the TV channel is broadcasting a film, recorded from a very good and well encoded a digital file, the bit rate and format it's not the same of the TV channel band.

Since most films loose grain during the real time endoding of TV system of transmission, I think would be wise to studios to supply digital TV Stations with film files already grain reduced with high quality tools. The smoother texture in static areas would turn easier to the real time encoder of broadcaster to preserve the fine details&lines of the image, since the encoder will not spent much bit rate trying to reproduce grain.

John Lowry use to say that grain reduction made encoding easier. This was very true in the first 5 year of DVD, and became less relevant after high quality encoder softwares made DVD look better. Perhaps it's a valid argument today if we think in HD broadcast.

The HDTV picture that I've seen on cable and over the air is usually substantially sharper than the old standard NTSC broadcasts were (and digital standard-definition is usually worse than analog NTSC), but with any digital broadcasts whenever there's a lot of motion on screen the picture degrades rapidly, typically with what looks like a swarm of insects around whatever's moving. Then HD doesn't look any better and sometimes looks worse than SD. I've found sports broadcasts all but unwatchable on broadcast HD....

I wondered if anyone else noticed this. I've got a regular old TV and a digital cable box, and i've noticed the picture degrading when there is fast motion, just like it does on heavily compressed DVDs (like a 12 chapter serial all on one DVD, all the chase sequences are unwatchable). I'm also seeing a lot of a picture gradually degrading and suddenly sharpening up, and then degrading again, over and over--as i see frequently on YouTube. But, hey, i'm paying for cable TV, why is the picture getting worse all the time?

greta

[Danny Burk]

I see it all the time...it seems worse on broadcast HD than it does on DVD, and still worse to me (rendering the scene basically unwatchable) on broadcast SD. I often say that I'm VERY unimpressed with digital cable. It shows up on, say, nature programs with a flock of flying birds, moving over a scene with a lot of fine detail (leaves, flowers, etc). If I later get a blu-ray of the same program, the problem is usually gone, thanks to lessened compression.

At least I'm not the only one who noticew all the crap of real time digital video compression.

I think one of the problems, especially with broadcast televsion, is that we're still in a transitional period. Yes, everybody went HD, but they didn't go out and buy all new equipement. Right now, there's a bunch of equipment that was made for analog broadcasting that has been modified/hacked to work with HD. Once that equipment is phased out, I think things will clean up. I'm speaking from personal experience here. We're having all sorts of problems with conversions that are really trashing out our video. We have new editing systems coming in this summer that should really clean things up. Just my opinion.

Uhhnnnn.... I would say that your point view it's 50% true or less.
Conversions can carry video noise, problems of video field like ghost frames, and this makes the encoding work a hard task for a real time algorithm.
But nothing forbides a film or FX to have things like ghost images, or things similar to noise, or any very texture or intense detail variation frame to frame.

About TVs, if a analogic TV, for example, show artefacts while you watch a DVD or digital cable TV, the artefacts will appear in a digital TV two, as well on computer monitor. Some people who work for digital cabele TV try to use digital TV as a excuse, saying that the artefacts it's due you use a analogic TV. For me this is just trying to meake fool of people.

I think one of the problems, especially with broadcast televsion, is that we're still in a transitional period. Yes, everybody went HD, but they didn't go out and buy all new equipement. Right now, there's a bunch of equipment that was made for analog broadcasting that has been modified/hacked to work with HD. Once that equipment is phased out, I think things will clean up. I'm speaking from personal experience here. We're having all sorts of problems with conversions that are really trashing out our video. We have new editing systems coming in this summer that should really clean things up. Just my opinion.

All I know is that Blu-rays look phenomenal on my lovely 55" UN55C8000 LED LCD Samsung. My dusty old CRT is now hooked up in the game room, host to all my pre-'90s video game consoles.