LCD vs CRT ranting

[All Darc]

Easy noticeable banding it's often a result of non-ideal video compression, like MPEG-2, MPEG-4. Even MPEG4 with 8 bits can look much worse (even in good TVs) than a 8 bits JPEG image due compression.

And I bet even 10 bit TV with 10 bit video un-ideal compressed, will have banding due bad compression, in the same way bad 8 bit compression already have much worse banding than most JPEG 8bit images.

Then some f...ing technician, will tell me it's because it's not 12 bits, but just 10 bits. In this day I will start to punch technicians.
I put a chanel in front of a technician, in the 4K LED TV, and a image in one was as bad a VHS, and with artefacts everywhere. And the sono of a... told me : "it's because it's not 4K signal".
They never admit the system it's a crap, but always creates retard excuse that offends intelligence.

Originally Posted by Ecky

Banding is often caused by insufficient color palette. Cheap TN panels (which have bad color, bad viewing angles, color shift, and which I consider garbage) often have 6 bit color - which means they can only produce 64 different shades of each color. You get obvious banding on these cheap screens. It's hard to find them any more in the US though.

8 bit color is standard on most LCDs that aren't total garbage. It's unlikely you'd be able to perceive banding that wasn't already there when the video was recorded.

10 bit color is available on very high end panels, and must be paired with something that can output 10 bit color, because most recording isn't 10 bit.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by All Darc

One more rare soul who undestand my taste and my dislike for LCDs.

That's what happens when they have the task of put speakers in a slin shape device.
Such slin dictatorchip TVs managed to destroy even the

All broadcast tv channels I saw was garbage.

Welcome to the world of compression!

ATSC 3 which is being released late this year claims to solve most of the compression issues but more likely they will just cram more channels into less bandwidth bringing us back to current state.

I use a 27” trinitron to watch classic content and play my snes

The HD set I use for YouTube and the like.

Each display type is a tool for a purpose .

[All Darc]

Exactly, and each time they trust in new algorithm we lost more. The algorithms to "solve" compression issues just try to hide the defects, like MPEG-4 did over MPEG-2, but created other PROBLEMS, like worse shadow details when in low bitrate, and much more fall of quality during significative motion, since in motion there are few things in common to the algorithm compress.

The digital sat rent chanels system here have almost 20's years, and when was released had better image than today, since was only 10 channels. I didn't got the early beggning, but got when was about 30 or so channels, and had very few artefacts. It was SD, and today, in HD it's much worse than 18 years ago..

But even so a prime analogic signal was bettert in texture sharpness than the sat digital in early days, cause there was chanels present in both, open broadcast analogic and in the digital sat system, and I could change in less than a second from one to other source, and the analogic despite very few noise, was better. When they added more and more chanels the analogic became far better than the digital. When HD arrived, it was so compressed that had very few difference to the digital non HD.]

Save a image in a JPEG format in lowest quality allowed and you will understand me. It reach of point of "crapness" where resolution don't matter, given the absurd compression.

The more elaborated the compression, more processing power it takes. And real time encoding will be always worse, since it's made in hurry, cause a well encoded analyze would take more time and would require much more processing power to be able to render in real time.

That's why I keep my position; "HD DIGITAL VIDEO AND DIGITAL TVs are just a lie, having no real resolution or ability to display the resolution reported.
JUST A F...KING LIE !!! It's like need to buy 4 pounds of meat to get just 1 pound of meat, since the other 3/4 it's just cartilage/fat/bones.

If things keep this way digital will never be good, cause they will just add more chanels and keep the crap standart of garbage.
I see reports about people notice digital artefacts in the credits of movies on digital theaters. I don't even go to movies, cause I know I will be revolted, cause on Brazil they always will get a sh...t system for low price.

PEOPLE ARE STUPID. They spot noise and ghosting of analogic signal and complain, but if they see a digital image with no noise or ghosting, even than with smoot soft details instead of sharp textures, they don't complain.
They also don't complain about white clipping or banding.

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Welcome to the world of compression!

ATSC 3 which is being released late this year claims to solve most of the compression issues but more likely they will just cram more channels into less bandwidth bringing us back to current state.

I use a 27” trinitron to watch classic content and play my snes

The HD set I use for YouTube and the like.

Each display type is a tool for a purpose .

[freebeard]

PEOPLE ARE STUPID.

Still top-posting, I see.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Exactly, and each time they trust in new algorithm we lost more.

But all of that has exactly nothing to do with LCD vs CRT displays. If you show an uncompressed video source on an LCD, most if not all of those artifacts would go away. If you show a compressed source on a CRT (assuming you could find one with the right resolution & form factor), you would see the compression-related artifacts on it.

PEOPLE ARE STUPID.

So which UFO did you come on, then?

[All Darc]

I never said it (video compression) was related to LCD panel. I was talking about the two issues, video displays and video signal.

The decoding ability of players and some TV also counts, for example the Samsung 4K here, who play from pen drive, render really bad gradients. In a 1GB file for just 90 seconds of video, with the camera steady still, and even though creating banding and artefacts... It's suspicious the decoding processing of the 4K TV was garbage too.
But some freak technicians, will blame just the decoding hability, even if the compression was extremelly high and impossible to look ane decency in any decoding system on Earth.

And I could also talk about video cameras, cause a given number of pixels for a camera sensor do not necessarily mean that the camera will have really good skill to capture details, since also depends of the kind of sensor it uses. Some 4K camera are garbage, not really better than prime uncompressed HD.

Depending of the type of sensor you need a 4K sensor to get a perfect 2K data, or a 8K sensor to get a perfect 4K data.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But all of that has exactly nothing to do with LCD vs CRT displays. If you show an uncompressed video source on an LCD, most if not all of those artifacts would go away. If you show a compressed source on a CRT (assuming you could find one with the right resolution & form factor), you would see the compression-related artifacts on it.



So which UFO did you come on, then?

[redpoint5]

I'm very pleased with the picture quality of my compressed digital movies on my LCD:

https://youtu.be/p3yY4mFLjDM?t=193

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by All Darc

You would need a converter to convert from digital to analogic signal. But, for example, the digital converter I have for TV signal here it's a garbage

For me the weak signal is more bothersome than the quality of the converter I use. OK, I use an internal antenna while an external would be more suitable, but I'm not really willing to climb the roof of the building to place an antenna and having to run the cable down to my apartment.

[All Darc]

It come a long way... But still have artefacts in our time, and 25 years of color LCD display still have problems of angle and dynamic range.

People don' notice things cause they don't know what is a good image and cause they are far from TV, and cause TV can't work any decency in very close view position.
If the SP (quality of recording) VHS had the quality lowered like the 4K video have, people would complain a lot. For example, the suposed 4K it's far from be really 4K details, given the compression, the camera used to shoot, the TV with motion blur, the almost impossible close look at TV since it have uneven light distribution. The LIE of 4K movies that mostly are just interpolations from 2K digital files.

The somatory of it all make the quality drops a lot. People will see a 4K film and will say it's better than a HD 1080p (with it's also not true due similar reasons) and will say it's ok. They have no reference to judge.

The percentage of loss in a suposed 4K file it's higher than the percentual loss of SD analogic tape. That's true !!! WHat people see it's 50% or less of a 4K image should be, and in SD analogic tapes it wasn't so high if was a professional tape or a betamax tape.
But people imagine digital have no loss because it's digital. This shake my nerves, so much lies.

Like I said, people pay for meat to a barbecue, and receive a very huge piece, but it's mostly cartilage, bones and fat, ratter than really good meat.

It's a masked industry !!! In analogic people would see the bad quality with few drops, but in digital age they have no good devices/screen to see videos of really high resolution, and don't even know how a really good image quality should be.

I bet when 8K arrives there will be images (suposed in 8K) that are just as 2K in true details and texture, and will still have a lot of banding and artefacts, and people will still say they are pleased with the image because in old days there was noise and ghosting image and now it have not.

And I will be not surprise if on Brazil some 8K chael get image worth than VHS during hard motion scenes. And no surprise if the dumb people here on Brazil accept it.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm very pleased with the picture quality of my compressed digital movies on my LCD:

https://youtu.be/p3yY4mFLjDM?t=193

[Ecky]

Maybe people just like LCDs better, and there's no conspiracy. Maybe the size of the screen, brightness, the reduced footprint (CRTs are so deep), generally much better integrated sound, larger number of inputs, software features (Netflix) all at a lower price, matter more than ghosting and clipped whites. Supply and demand.