Plasma Phosper Lag - Do You Get Over It?

[Drizt]

Ok... firstly if you can't see phosphor lag (easiest example - in a black and white scene, around fast moving edges you see colours - usually yellow and green and tinges of red) don't bother reading further

I see terrible phosper lag on the Pioneer and Samsung Plasma TV's. I had been set on the Panasonic plasma 800 50" tv but experienced phosphor lag aswell. My question is for those that do see it, do you get over it?

EDIT: Here is a site / video demo to explain phosphor lag -> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/plasma-phos...-2007040133.htm

Edited October 24, 2008 by Drizt

[re-boot]

I think this occurs an any plasma, to varying degrees.

Certainly from the reading I've done.

I've heard though, that it gets less noticable as the display clocks up more hours.

[nis200979]

Ok... firstly if you can't see phosphor lag (easiest example - in a black and white scene, around fast moving edges you see colours - usually yellow and green and tinges of red) don't bother reading further

I see terrible phosper lag on the Pioneer and Samsung Plasma TV's. I had been set on the Panasonic plasma 800 50" tv but experienced phosphor lag aswell. My question is for those that do see it, do you get over it?

EDIT: Here is a site / video demo to explain phosphor lag -> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/plasma-phos...-2007040133.htm

So what display are you going to buy?

CRTs are small

LCDs suck on B&W, and on fast movement

PDPs are not perfect, but well set up, the best for video.

If you want perfection, become an audiophile. Technology has matured over a longer period with a somewhat more simple technology.

[Drizt]

So what display are you going to buy?

CRTs are small

LCDs suck on B&W, and on fast movement

PDPs are not perfect, but well set up, the best for video.

If you want perfection, become an audiophile. Technology has matured over a longer period with a somewhat more simple technology.

I guess I'll buy one with the least amount of annoyances to me (& the wife) personally.

I really like the picture of the Panasonic 800 50" but can see phosphor lag in them. Im just wondering if this is something that people get used to. I know I can't handle or get used to DLP rainbows, but not sure if this is something less severe that I could live with.

[Drizt]

Ill know the answer to this soon. I bought a 800A 50" panasonic today (delivered next week). Decided to buy it as I think I could get used to the effect I see more so than issues I have with other displays.

[MrGadget]

Good stuff Drizt. I'm still holding out till some time next year. I still don't know whether to jump on the plasma bandwagon and go a 50" (although I reckon it is too small from where I sit) or keep watching on my 'small' 32" CRT for normal tv and get a video projector for movie watching.

[Quelch]

Good stuff Drizt. I'm still holding out till some time next year. I still don't know whether to jump on the plasma bandwagon and go a 50" (although I reckon it is too small from where I sit) or keep watching on my 'small' 32" CRT for normal tv and get a video projector for movie watching.

I suggest sticking with the CRT until it dies !

I rearranged my TV viewing to a smaller room, now I'm sitting two metres from my 26" CRT and it is just as big as a 50" plasma at four metres

I've been so keen to buy a plasma or LCD TV but I'm continually underwhelmed by the technology, though I acknowledge it is improving continually

I would have bought a top end Pioneer Plasma but couldn't justify eight grand for the meager programing available on 'free-to-air' TV and half a dozen BlueRay movies that I would consider worth paying forty dollars for

I'd rather go on holiday to Canada or Europe with the money !

What would a projector and screen cost and is it really as good as a quality CRT TV ?

[Mr.Bitey]

If you can control the light - keep the CRT and go a projector.

If youve got room, consider a rear projector.. tho these are hard to come by now..

Cheers,

Bitey

[BenH]

Ill know the answer to this soon. I bought a 800A 50" panasonic today (delivered next week). Decided to buy it as I think I could get used to the effect I see more so than issues I have with other displays.

I have a Pioneer 508xda and I noticed this a lot when looking in shops. When I got the unit set up and took it off "Dynamic" the effect was much less noticeable.

Now I rarely see it, mainly on black and white shows or fast moving white credits on black background.

Ben

[Fizz]

I noticed it on my Pana 42pz800a, and complained earlier about it. I remember saying though, that the TV was so damn good and clear that I forgave the odd phosphor lag.

That was a few months ago. Now I have forgotten about phosphor lag, and rarely see it. I would consider myself fussy when it comes to picture quality. Whether it's me who has become used to it, or whether the TV has settled in, I can't be sure. My bet would be the TV has settled in, because I can now watch a whole movie and not be reminded of it at all.

The bottom line is that phosphor lag shouldn't be a show-stopper. It's not like DLP rainbows (which make me feel sick). I can't speak for other brands of plasma, or other sizes, but the 42pz800a is an absolute machine, and I don't notice phosphor lag anymore. For example, the movie "The Others" has plenty of dark scenes, contrasty... I watched it the other night and phosphor lag never entered my mind.

Settings might be a factor too. I have my settings throttled down a bit (for my viewing conditions and preference).... "cinema mode", contrast 49, brightness 54, colour 42, sharpness 60, colour temp warm, colour management off, PN-R off, 100hz off. Resulting picture is sweet, no headaches, no fatigue, looks velvet smooth yet sharp!

[Tweet]

I finally installed my 50"PZ800A last night after 2 weeks of it sitting in its box waiting for me to build a suitable cabinet for it to stand on ( 600 mm from the floor).

It certainly has impressive black levels and very happy to say it is 'pixel perfect' which is always a bit of a concern to anyone buying a big screen.

On the subject of 'phosphor lag ' , it is not visible in a 1080p movie where each pixel is independently addressed from the movie itself but I was made quite aware of it when playing a standard DVD movie like 'Alien' with its lower light levels.

DVD movies upscaled to 1080p involve a great deal of interpolation where 80% of the screen image is just made-up data (rubbish) and as such phosphor lag seen as motion artifacts went up by 400%.... not a pretty sight. Big screens and upscaling from 576 to 1080p just don't mix in the quality stakes.

The fact is DVD just doesn't cut it on a 1080p high definition screen though on a 1280 x 720p projector ( Z4) with a 92 inch screen it can look very good ( especially with an XE1 ).

I tried this in Standard and Cinema modes, with Pany connected to my HTPC which allowed me to fiddle with settings. I did find the Pany has excellent colour reproduction once that 'Colour management' and 'IFC' functions were disabled.

It is a shame though that the quality of HDTV programs in this country is so abysmal with much being upscaled SDTV, hardly an incentive to buy a HD plasma.......but I love it anyway.

C.M

[Owen]

Scaling video has no affect on phosphor lag, sounds like what you are seeing is compression related artefacts.

Scaling does NOT cause artefacts unless it is done very poorly, which is not likely these days. In fact scaling reduces the visibility of artefacts that may be in the video source, the more you scale the BETTER the picture.

1080 displays are not inherently worse then 768 displays for the display of SD, however there certainly can be a significant difference in how individual displays perform, some are just better then others. Its not a display resolution issue, it’s a display quality issue.

The best SD image I have ever seen have been on a 1080 display, so 1080 is NOT the problem in and of its self.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Owen

[alanh]

Owen,

Scaling has to produce artifacts unless the scaling is a whole number.

I see it all the time when TV stations do upscaling on the HD channels. The artifacts disappear when the original is 1080i

As for lag, you need to use "Digital Essentials CD", Blu-ray edition to set up the viewing conditions and the brightness and contrast. This will minimise the decay.

AlanH

[fencer1]

Well I've gone from a Loewe Calida 68cm which has a damn nice picture, to a Pioneer 50"1080p and even watching a movie such as Saving Private Ryan on dvd rather then my blue ray is an a fantastic picture. I can't believe that anyone could watch these plasma's and find anything wrong with them. It was worth every dollar of four and a half grand.

[Tweet]

Scaling video has no affect on phosphor lag, sounds like what you are seeing is compression related artefacts.

Scaling does NOT cause artefacts unless it is done very poorly, which is not likely these days. In fact scaling reduces the visibility of artefacts that may be in the video source, the more you scale the BETTER the picture.

1080 displays are not inherently worse then 768 displays for the display of SD, however there certainly can be a significant difference in how individual displays perform, some are just better then others. Its not a display resolution issue, it's a display quality issue.

The best SD image I have ever seen have been on a 1080 display, so 1080 is NOT the problem in and of its self.

Owen, I beg to differ on this one, but grab yourself a DVD copy of 'Alien' if you haven't got one and see for yourself.

At the point where the crew members are seated around the the table having breakfast, having come from their sleeping quarters, the camera moves laterally and in that scene and the one following motion artifacts are clearly seen.

I use ' Alien' as a source reference as it has subtle lighting effects and deep contrasts, it may be a 30 year old movie but it being 'less colourful' aids in revealing flaws.

Scaling does nothing for an image, it merely remaps it at a higher resolution with the accompaniment of generated data filling the gaps, that's why we see 'clay' faces without detail. Scaling does not generate detail but actually degrades the image by introducing its own into the mix.

Compare the image in its original resolution to that of the upscaled version and one can clearly see a 'quality' difference.

C.M

...edited spelling mistake.

Edited November 23, 2008 by Tweet

[Owen]

Owen,

Scaling has to produce artifacts unless the scaling is a whole number.

I see it all the time when TV stations do upscaling on the HD channels. The artifacts disappear when the original is 1080i

Alan, maybe you can explain the term “artefact” in the context of video. To me it means an aberration or obvious detect such as macro blocking, combing, aliasing or some other nasty and unwelcome visual problem.

Video scaling has been a hobby of mine and I have spent hundreds of hours over the last 8 years experimenting with it in every way I could think of in an attempt to improve SD video quality (mainly DVD) for display on a big screen. In all that time I have never seen scaling produce anything I could describe as an artefact, the worst that can happen is softening of the image, which is correctable.

Upscaling can most certainly improve SD video, especially the highly compressive video we get form DVD.

If you want to see an ugly image look at DVD source displayed unscaled 1:1 on a big screen, more “artefacts” then you can poke a stick at.

Motion “artefacts” with DVD are strictly compression related.

[Owen]

Owen, I beg to differ on this one, but grab yourself a DVD copy of 'Alien' if you haven't got one and see for yourself.

At the point where the crew members are seated around the the table having breakfast, having come from their sleeping quarters, the camera moves laterally and in that scene and the one following motion artifacts are clearly seen.

So what you are saying, unless I’m confused, is that highly compressed video with a peak data rate of 9Megabits per second (likely much lower on a long move like Alien) shows motion artifacts, wow what a revelation. How do you work this out to be the fault of the 720x576 video format? Have you ever seen uncompressed 576 video, guess what it has no motion artifacts.

If you want to get an idea of what uncompressed 720x576 video looks like get a top quality BluRay 1080 movie and downscale it to 720x576. Compare that with the DVD and you will see that the DVD looks crappy in comparison. In fact you will be shocked at how good SD can look without the crippling video compression of DVD. There will be no artifacts what so ever unless they where present in the 1080 version.

Using FFDShow or an AVI syth script on a PC I can scale down 1080 video to 576 and back up to 1080 in real time for display on my 70” 1080 TV. As expected the scaled down version looses a little detail and looks a little soft as all resolution above 720x576 is stripped away, but there are no artifact.

Scaling does nothing for an image, it merely remaps it at a higher resolution with the accompaniment of generated data filling the gaps, that's why we see 'clay' faces without detail. Scaling does not generate detail but actually degrades the image by introducing its own into the mix.

Upscaling does not change resolution, it just adds pixels, resolution and pixel count are not the same thing. What upscaling does do is anti alias the image which is very important for compressed SD video which is made up of to few a lines and a bunch of compression blocks that have little if any relationship to the original analogue image. If you think faithfully reproducing this digital crud is good for picture quality so be it, but the popularity of upscaling DVD players, upscaling on home theatre PC’s and high end scaler processors suggests there is something to the upscaling thing.

I originated the whole FFDShow software upscaling thing that became very popular in the HTPC community over at AVS forum some years ago, long before unscaling DVD players where available. At first there where many skeptics like you who believed scaling was evil but as people used my proposed upscaling techniques they soon become believers, and now upscaling is considered a normal and desirable thing to do.

“Clay face” is the result of poor chroma (colour) resolution, it is not a byproduct of scaling.

Compare the image in its original resolution to that of the upscaled version and one can clearly see a 'quality' difference.

I don’t know where you got the idea that I was suggesting upscaling DVD was in any way as good as genuine high bit rate 1080 video, that’s a ridicules notion. What I am saying is that upscaling can make DVD SD images cleaner, clearer, sharper and a whole lot less “digital” looking then they originally are. The idea that scaling is inherently bad or creates “artifacts” is just plain inaccurate, upscaling helps reduce “artifacts” not create them.

The best DVD images I have seen are the result of upscaling 720x576 video to 2160x1728 and back down to 1920x1080 for display.

[Tweet]

So what you are saying, unless I'm confused, is that highly compressed video with a peak data rate of 9Megabits per second (likely much lower on a long move like Alien) shows motion artifacts, wow what a revelation. How do you work this out to be the fault of the 720x576 video format? Have you ever seen uncompressed 576 video, guess what it has no motion artifacts.

If you want to get an idea of what uncompressed 720x576 video looks like get a top quality BluRay 1080 movie and downscale it to 720x576. Compare that with the DVD and you will see that the DVD looks crappy in comparison. In fact you will be shocked at how good SD can look without the crippling video compression of DVD. There will be no artifacts what so ever unless they where present in the 1080 version.

Using FFDShow or an AVI syth script on a PC I can scale down 1080 video to 576 and back up to 1080 in real time for display on my 70" 1080 TV. As expected the scaled down version looses a little detail and looks a little soft as all resolution above 720x576 is stripped away, but there are no artifact.

Upscaling does not change resolution, it just adds pixels, resolution and pixel count are not the same thing. What upscaling does do is anti alias the image which is very important for compressed SD video which is made up of to few a lines and a bunch of compression blocks that have little if any relationship to the original analogue image. If you think faithfully reproducing this digital crud is good for picture quality so be it, but the popularity of upscaling DVD players, upscaling on home theatre PC's and high end scaler processors suggests there is something to the upscaling thing.

I originated the whole FFDShow software upscaling thing that became very popular in the HTPC community over at AVS forum some years ago, long before unscaling DVD players where available. At first there where many skeptics like you who believed scaling was evil but as people used my proposed upscaling techniques they soon become believers, and now upscaling is considered a normal and desirable thing to do.

"Clay face" is the result of poor chroma (colour) resolution, it is not a byproduct of scaling.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting upscaling DVD was in any way as good as genuine high bit rate 1080 video, that's a ridicules notion. What I am saying is that upscaling can make DVD SD images cleaner, clearer, sharper and a whole lot less "digital" looking then they originally are. The idea that scaling is inherently bad or creates "artifacts" is just plain inaccurate, upscaling helps reduce "artifacts" not create them.

The best DVD images I have seen are the result of upscaling 720x576 video to 2160x1728 and back down to 1920x1080 for display.

Well Owen, you are no doubt passionate about this subject even to the point of being abbrassive to anyone who may have an alternative opinion, to what purpose, such preoccupations are beyond me.

I'll leave it with you. Cheers.

C.M

[Sticky Keyboard]

What upscaling does do is anti alias the image.

I think this is the key point to understanding owen's point (!) about upscaling

Edit: It is common in digital signal processing to use anti-aliasing ... e.g. computer games use FSAA to reduce jaggies in your game.

The best DVD images I have seen are the result of upscaling 720x576 video to 2160x1728 and back down to 1920x1080 for display.

Nice, I should try that one day.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Kage Bunshin No Luffy

[Owen]

Well Owen, you are no doubt passionate about this subject even to the point of being abbrassive to anyone who may have an alternative opinion, to what purpose, such preoccupations are beyond me.

I'll leave it with you. Cheers.

C.M

Sorry if my post came off as abrasive, that was not my intent, sorry.

Am I passionate about the subject, well yes I was and I invested a lot of time doing practical scaling experiments to find out what worked and why, not just for the hell of it but for good reason. In the days before Bluray and HDDVD, DVD’s where the dominant domestic video source and since I have owned big screen TV’s since 2000 getting the best possible performance out of DVD was a big deal.

When people blame scaling for all manner of video evils I do find it distressing, not just because its not true, but because it only perpetuates the miss information that pervades the net and encourages others to believe it. Its quite staggering the number of people who blindly blame scaling for all manner of picture quality issues when scaling is the least likely culprit. Video compression, poor quality deinterlacing, second rate digital video processing and less then best display technology are the prime causes of “artefacts” and poor quality images, scaling does not even rate a mention and should be the last thing to lay blame on.

Scaling is not rocket science and its not difficult to do well enough not to cause problems. The likelihood of finding a display with scaling poor enough to be a significant problem is effectively zero and has been for years.