|
|
Posted by TokaMundo on 10/03/42 11:25
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:53:45 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> Gave us:
>TokaMundo wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:26:33 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> Gave us:
>>
>>
>>>DLPs are better than LCD now.
>>>
>>>thay have a black level near CRT and a sharpness near LCD.
>>
>>
>> And more anomalous artifacts than any monitor I have ever seen in my
>> life. The image gets converted, and quite badly at that. The systems
>> have all the motion processing of a snail.
>>
>> CRTs are STILL top dog on image quality. Zero artifacts is the
>> number one reason that they will always beat DLPs too. Until folks
>> complain, the DLP boys won't upgrade their compromise on quality
>> either. Y'all gotz poor taste, and poor observational aptitude.
>>
>> IBMs 19 million pixel OLED monitor comes in a close second.
>>
>> Until OLED is mainstream, you won't see any monitor designs coming
>> anywhere close to CRT performance.
>
>
>obviously you've never seen the Optoma H31 then.
You cause me to question your ability to assess video quality then.
There is an outside chance that they use a good motion estimation
system in their conversion of the input signal. Though I have yet to
see one that does.
>
>
>- I have yet to see any artifacts from it. 12-ft screen would show htem
>it they existed.
First, you would have to prove to me that you even know what they
are.
>
>only some slight rainbowing - nothing more.
This causes me more doubt as this is not even a term used in the
industry to describe video quality.
>color is top notch, as is
>sharpness.
Color and sharpness mean nothing when moving pictures give rise to
the artifacts. It all goes in the toilet at that point.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|