Sony new XBR8 LCD with LED technology.

[Smokey]

Sony will release three new XBR models (XBR6, XBR7, XBR8) this summer/fall. The buzz is about new XBR8 model which utilyze LED backlighting technology. Nicknamed TRILUMINOS, the feature will dramatically improve contrast ratios by allowing the TV to selectively shut off the backlight in darker parts of a scene, creating much deeper blacks without affecting the rest of the picture.

It also dramatically improves the overall color accuracy by using an array of red, green, and blue LEDs instead of a [single] white pixel with three tiny filters, one red, one green, and one blue. With three different LEDs representing a pixel, you get the pure, saturated primary colors. And these purer primary colors yield better-looking mixtures, as well.

Sony's new TVs are supposed to deliver a color gamut equivalent to 105 percent of the NTSC color space. By comparison, most LCDs manage only 65 to 75 percent, and even CRT monitors generally provide around 80 percent.

The XBR8 is expected to launch at first with just one 46-inch model, the KDL-46XBR8, that will ship in August. A 52-inch XBR8 model will follow sometime between September and October.

[pixelthis]

THIS IS what I have been waiting for.
Too bad I probably wont be able to afford it.
The problem with backlights has always been that "dark" areas dont shut out
the light completely, resulting in (slightly) washed out blacks.
While ajustable backlights and other things have helped, this seems a more permanent
solution.
Of course SIR TALKY WILL FIND SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT:1:

[Smokey]

The problem with backlights has always been that "dark" areas dont shut out the light completely, resulting in (slightly) washed out blacks. While ajustable backlights and other things have helped, this seems a more permanent solution.


In this design, Sony seem to be addressing shortcomings which LCD had over plasma. Deeper blacks and more accurate colors.

This LED design for LCDs seem to be what Trinitron was to CRT TVS. If the reviews hold up, Plasma might indeed be dead :1:

[Woochifer]

In this design, Sony seem to be addressing shortcomings which LCD had over plasma. Deeper blacks and more accurate colors.

Actually, the biggest deficiency that LCD has relative to plasma and other HDTV designs is the motion resolution, and I don't see anything in this that addresses that issue. Even the 120 Hz 1080p LCDs that were touted to have solved LCD's issues with motion blur still display fewer than 600 lines of resolution with a moving image.


This LED design for LCDs seem to be what Trinitron was to CRT TVS. If the reviews hold up, Plasma might indeed be dead :1:

Until reviews of actual production units come out, we won't know how much of an improvement these new Sonys have made compared to the other units on the market. If you'll recall, last year when Sharp announced their 120 Hz LCD models with LED backlighting, that too was touted as a magic bullet development. If the actual performance matched the hype, that would have been my HDTV of choice. But, when the actual sets and reviews came out, those 120 Hz LCDs still couldn't come close to the motion resolution of LCoS, DLP, or plasma, and the Sharps had visible problems with color banding.

If these Sony models do manage to address the color accuracy, contrast, and motion resolution deficiencies, then the question becomes how much will these things cost? (i.e., can they match the price points with the 1080p Panasonic and Samsung plasmas that already render a motion resolution of nearly 900 lines?)

[pixelthis]

Actually, the biggest deficiency that LCD has relative to plasma and other HDTV designs is the motion resolution, and I don't see anything in this that addresses that issue. Even the 120 Hz 1080p LCDs that were touted to have solved LCD's issues with motion blur still display fewer than 600 lines of resolution with a moving image.



Until reviews of actual production units come out, we won't know how much of an improvement these new Sonys have made compared to the other units on the market. If you'll recall, last year when Sharp announced their 120 Hz LCD models with LED backlighting, that too was touted as a magic bullet development. If the actual performance matched the hype, that would have been my HDTV of choice. But, when the actual sets and reviews came out, those 120 Hz LCDs still couldn't come close to the motion resolution of LCoS, DLP, or plasma, and the Sharps had visible problems with color banding.

If these Sony models do manage to address the color accuracy, contrast, and motion resolution deficiencies, then the question becomes how much will these things cost? (i.e., can they match the price points with the 1080p Panasonic and Samsung plasmas that already render a motion resolution of nearly 900 lines?)



This "motion" pronlem is the biggest myth concerning modern electronics.
leave it to the clueless wooch the plasma worshiper to keep the myth alive.
I have had an LCD for going on a year and a half, and have seen a very slight hiccup during very fast action scenes only once or twice, and that might have been my imagination.
And some sets today have a FIVE milisec respense time.
But even with an eight mil response time the eye cant resolve any flicker, simply too fast.
If this were true you could see trouble with film, and its 24 fps frame rate
With an eight mil response time that is eight times every 1 thousanth of a second, or
eight thousand times a second.
THE SLOW RESPONSE TIME has been a non issue for years.
If you claim you can tell motion blur with a refresh rate of 8 thousand times a second, but cant with the 24fps rate of film, you are either delusional or a liar, or both.
AND plasma has had problems with washed out blacks also, its performance is little better than LCD with this.
Not that it matters, what with plasma being dead and all.:1:

[Woochifer]

This "motion" pronlem is the biggest myth concerning modern electronics.
leave it to the clueless wooch the plasma worshiper to keep the myth alive.

:out:

So, if this is a myth, then why does the 1080p 60 Hz Vizio LCD set that Home Theater tested last November drop all the way down to 360 lines of resolution when displaying a moving image? We're talking about a set rated at 1080p dropping below standard def resolution with a moving image. None of the 1080p plasmas in that test dropped below 830 lines, and all of the LCoS and DLP sets tested above 650 lines. The top performing 120 Hz LCD sets could only manage 600 lines in that motion resolution test. Here's the exact quote from the article:

The 1080p displays' static and motion tests should be of great interest to anyone who watches sports and action movies. With the lower-rated displays, for example, the pinstripes on the New York Yankees' home uniform disappear as the pitcher moves on the mound, and numbers on the sides of the NASCAR racers become a blur as they whiz by the camera. The displays' performance went hand in hand with the technology. Flat-panel LCD had the lowest performance when it came to motion detail, with a range of 360 (an exceptionally low score) to 600. The rear projectors using LCOS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) or DLP (Digital Light Processing technology) were the next best in performance, with motion scores ranging from 650 to 700 lines. The plasma sets produced the best motion detail, with a range of 830 to 880 lines.

Seems that I'm not the one perpetuating mythology here! :cool:


I have had an LCD for going on a year and a half, and have seen a very slight hiccup during very fast action scenes only once or twice, and that might have been my imagination.

With sports in high def, the issue's actually very obvious with a 60 Hz LCD set when lining the images up side by side with a plasma. This issue, along with unavailability of 1080p plasma sets at that time, is why I opted not to buy a HDTV two years ago.


And some sets today have a FIVE milisec respense time.
But even with an eight mil response time the eye cant resolve any flicker, simply too fast.
If this were true you could see trouble with film, and its 24 fps frame rate
With an eight mil response time that is eight times every 1 thousanth of a second, or
eight thousand times a second.
THE SLOW RESPONSE TIME has been a non issue for years.
If you claim you can tell motion blur with a refresh rate of 8 thousand times a second, but cant with the 24fps rate of film, you are either delusional or a liar, or both.

All's well and good on a spec sheet, but we're not talking about response time (which affects, but is not the sole determinant of motion resolution). The LCDs are perfectly capable of displaying a 24 fps frame rate, but they also more lose image detail in the process than any other display technology. The motion resolution is about the difference between what a LCD TV displays with a still image versus what it displays with a moving image. With an actual production unit test, the 60 Hz LCD set's resolution dropped about 65% of its picture detail with a moving image. How do you explain that? Or are you now claiming that it's impossible to differentiate between 360 lines and 1080 lines of resolution? :crazy:


Not that it matters, what with plasma being dead and all.:1:

:out:

[Smokey]

With sports in high def, the issue's actually very obvious with a 60 Hz LCD set when lining the images up side by side with a plasma.



Well, not necessarily. Cnet did evaluation of several 60 Hz and 120 Hz LCD along side higher end Plasmas, and they didn’t notice any noticeable motion blur that earlier generation LCDs were famous for. As matter of fact, they said they haven't had a motion-blur problem with any of the newer 60Hz LCD TVs reviewed in recent times.


http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6792632-1.html

[pixelthis]

:out:

So, if this is a myth, then why does the 1080p 60 Hz Vizio LCD set that Home Theater tested last November drop all the way down to 360 lines of resolution when displaying a moving image? We're talking about a set rated at 1080p dropping below standard def resolution with a moving image. None of the 1080p plasmas in that test dropped below 830 lines, and all of the LCoS and DLP sets tested above 650 lines. The top performing 120 Hz LCD sets could only manage 600 lines in that motion resolution test. Here's the exact quote from the article:

The 1080p displays' static and motion tests should be of great interest to anyone who watches sports and action movies. With the lower-rated displays, for example, the pinstripes on the New York Yankees' home uniform disappear as the pitcher moves on the mound, and numbers on the sides of the NASCAR racers become a blur as they whiz by the camera. The displays' performance went hand in hand with the technology. Flat-panel LCD had the lowest performance when it came to motion detail, with a range of 360 (an exceptionally low score) to 600. The rear projectors using LCOS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) or DLP (Digital Light Processing technology) were the next best in performance, with motion scores ranging from 650 to 700 lines. The plasma sets produced the best motion detail, with a range of 830 to 880 lines.

Seems that I'm not the one perpetuating mythology here! :cool:



With sports in high def, the issue's actually very obvious with a 60 Hz LCD set when lining the images up side by side with a plasma. This issue, along with unavailability of 1080p plasma sets at that time, is why I opted not to buy a HDTV two years ago.



All's well and good on a spec sheet, but we're not talking about response time (which affects, but is not the sole determinant of motion resolution). The LCDs are perfectly capable of displaying a 24 fps frame rate, but they also more lose image detail in the process than any other display technology. The motion resolution is about the difference between what a LCD TV displays with a still image versus what it displays with a moving image. With an actual production unit test, the 60 Hz LCD set's resolution dropped about 65% of its picture detail with a moving image. How do you explain that? Or are you now claiming that it's impossible to differentiate between 360 lines and 1080 lines of resolution? :crazy:



:out:


RESOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
The whole motion issue concerns not if there is a "resolution drop" (which there isnt)
but whether or not the set can refresh fast enough to keep the human eye "fooled"
that motion is seamless,WHICH IT CAN.
You wanna talk about "resolution" that is another subject ENTIRELY.
Leave it to a professional govt liar to change the subject when he is losing an argument.
What I am talking about is the seamless appearance of motion,
I DONT KNOW WHAT you're talking about.
But its funny that I have been saying that an interlaced pic loses half of its resolution
ever since I have come on this board, to much boos and jeers,
and you're basically saying the same thing.
Truth is all displays lose some res when theres movement, interlaced is the worst,
but can the eye tell any difference that test equipment can?
Of course not, we dont have eyes nearly that good.
So its of no consequence whatsoever.
Just another effort for a plasma worshiper to plug his obsolete tech.
The 360 you were talking about was an exceptionally low score, most scored 600 or so.
So a plasma scored 830, who cares?
That is a difference of 230 lines during fast movement with a lot of transitory images on the screen.
That isnt even worth mentioning.
Except to a stat juggling pro liar such as yourself:1:

[Woochifer]

RESOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
The whole motion issue concerns not if there is a "resolution drop" (which there isnt)
but whether or not the set can refresh fast enough to keep the human eye "fooled"
that motion is seamless,WHICH IT CAN.
You wanna talk about "resolution" that is another subject ENTIRELY.
Leave it to a professional govt liar to change the subject when he is losing an argument.
What I am talking about is the seamless appearance of motion,
I DONT KNOW WHAT you're talking about.
But its funny that I have been saying that an interlaced pic loses half of its resolution
ever since I have come on this board, to much boos and jeers,
and you're basically saying the same thing.
Truth is all displays lose some res when theres movement, interlaced is the worst,
but can the eye tell any difference that test equipment can?
Of course not, we dont have eyes nearly that good.
So its of no consequence whatsoever.
Just another effort for a plasma worshiper to plug his obsolete tech.
The 360 you were talking about was an exceptionally low score, most scored 600 or so.
So a plasma scored 830, who cares?
That is a difference of 230 lines during fast movement with a lot of transitory images on the screen.
That isnt even worth mentioning.
Except to a stat juggling pro liar such as yourself:1:

:out:

[pixelthis]

Well, not necessarily. Cnet did evaluation of several 60 Hz and 120 Hz LCD along side higher end Plasmas, and they didn’t notice any noticeable motion blur that earlier generation LCDs were famous for. As matter of fact, they said they haven't had a motion-blur problem with any of the newer 60Hz LCD TVs reviewed in recent times.


http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6792632-1.html

THANK YOU
I get so tired of this "motion blur" nonsense:1:

[nightflier]

Well, not necessarily. Cnet did evaluation of several 60 Hz and 120 Hz LCD along side higher end Plasmas, and they didn’t notice any noticeable motion blur that earlier generation LCDs were famous for. As matter of fact, they said they haven't had a motion-blur problem with any of the newer 60Hz LCD TVs reviewed in recent times.http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6792632-1.html

Well, I certainly don't know half as much as Wooch does about this, but I can tell you that motion blur is very apparent to my eyes. I've brought several TVs into my home to compare to my 42" Panasonic CRT. I use a simple component cable splitter and let her rip. And whatever CNet may say (not that I consider them the end-all-be-all of reviewing), the difference is obvious to me.

Watching action movies and sports, especially basketball & football, there is huge difference between the LCDs and the CRT, while the Plasmas do a much better job, generally speaking. Maybe this isn't an irritation to some people, but to me that's been the deal-breaker. Even 120Hz./24fps LCDs don't come close - actually some non-120Hz sets (Olevia) do better than their fancy, overpriced cousins. So needless to say, every single one of these sets has gone back to the store. I'm hoping to test that 2ms Philips LCD as soon as I can get my hands on one, but it's been getting pretty lackluster reviews. Anyhow, until LCD can solve the motion blur problem, I'm not buying - I need my sports w/o the headaches.

(I am on the fence about buying a Plasma, but the burn-out over time, higher-price, heat/energy issues are a real problem for me).

[Smokey]

I use a simple component cable splitter and let her rip. And whatever CNet may say (not that I consider them the end-all-be-all of reviewing), the difference is obvious to me.

I hope that wasn't "Y" splitter you are talking about as it would definitely degrade the signal. I don't own an LCD, so could not elaborate on that subject first hand. But you probably be right that some people might be too sensetive to flicker on TVs.

Even back in CRT TV hay days, some viewer complained about seeing scan lines and/or something to that effect and gave them headache.

Sitting distance might be a big factor in eliminating or redusing such effects. Another factor to consider might be the source itself. I have Comcast cable, and on some channels that are over compressed, if there is any fast movements, picture tend to fall apart.

[pixelthis]

Well, I certainly don't know half as much as Wooch does about this, but I can tell you that motion blur is very apparent to my eyes. I've brought several TVs into my home to compare to my 42" Panasonic CRT. I use a simple component cable splitter and let her rip. And whatever CNet may say (not that I consider them the end-all-be-all of reviewing), the difference is obvious to me.

Watching action movies and sports, especially basketball & football, there is huge difference between the LCDs and the CRT, while the Plasmas do a much better job, generally speaking. Maybe this isn't an irritation to some people, but to me that's been the deal-breaker. Even 120Hz./24fps LCDs don't come close - actually some non-120Hz sets (Olevia) do better than their fancy, overpriced cousins. So needless to say, every single one of these sets has gone back to the store. I'm hoping to test that 2ms Philips LCD as soon as I can get my hands on one, but it's been getting pretty lackluster reviews. Anyhow, until LCD can solve the motion blur problem, I'm not buying - I need my sports w/o the headaches.

(I am on the fence about buying a Plasma, but the burn-out over time, higher-price, heat/energy issues are a real problem for me).

As they should be:1:

[pixelthis]

:out:


AND YOU HAVE NO ANSWER,
so I guess I am right :1:

[nightflier]

Any update on XBR6, XBR7, XBR8 price / availability yet? That is, are they on store shelves?

[Woochifer]

AND YOU HAVE NO ANSWER,
so I guess I am right :1:

:out:

[GMichael]

:out:

He's left?

[Duds]

LMAO!!! Funny how something that is a big concern of your beloved LCD is a myth, yet "burn in" on plasma which is non-existent now is still a major drawback to plasmas in your f'ed up world.


This "motion" pronlem is the biggest myth concerning modern electronics.
leave it to the clueless wooch the plasma worshiper to keep the myth alive.
I have had an LCD for going on a year and a half, and have seen a very slight hiccup during very fast action scenes only once or twice, and that might have been my imagination.
And some sets today have a FIVE milisec respense time.
But even with an eight mil response time the eye cant resolve any flicker, simply too fast.
If this were true you could see trouble with film, and its 24 fps frame rate
With an eight mil response time that is eight times every 1 thousanth of a second, or
eight thousand times a second.
THE SLOW RESPONSE TIME has been a non issue for years.
If you claim you can tell motion blur with a refresh rate of 8 thousand times a second, but cant with the 24fps rate of film, you are either delusional or a liar, or both.
AND plasma has had problems with washed out blacks also, its performance is little better than LCD with this.
Not that it matters, what with plasma being dead and all.:1:

[pixelthis]

LMAO!!! Funny how something that is a big concern of your beloved LCD is a myth, yet "burn in" on plasma which is non-existent now is still a major drawback to plasmas in your f'ed up world.

NONEXISTENT?
My brother just bought a plasma, a 42in Samsung (I'm posting a thread on it.)
It has THREE doohickeys that are specificially put on there to deal with this
"nonexsistent" problem, as do most plasmas.
Not to mention a chapter in the owners manual detailing how to avoid
this "nonexsistent" problem as you call it.
So its not just me, nimrod, its the people who are making the things as well
who admit thst is a real problem:1:

[Duds]

used to be a problem, nimrod.


NONEXISTENT?
My brother just bought a plasma, a 42in Samsung (I'm posting a thread on it.)
It has THREE doohickeys that are specificially put on there to deal with this
"nonexsistent" problem, as do most plasmas.
Not to mention a chapter in the owners manual detailing how to avoid
this "nonexsistent" problem as you call it.
So its not just me, nimrod, its the people who are making the things as well
who admit thst is a real problem:1:

[pixelthis]

used to be a problem, nimrod.

AND STILL IS a "problem".
THE OWNERS MANUEL OF MY BROTHERS NEW SET says to not keep stationary
images on the set for the first six months, and to be carefull after that.
There are several "anti-burn " circuits, and a button that activates a
"white out " screen that is suposed to wipe out any afterimages before you turn it off.
AND grey bars for letterboxing, and every once in awhile the picture jumps a
little.

What part of this do you not understand?:1: