Ask Engadget HD: When does contrast ratio fail to matter on an LCD?
"I'm looking to buy an LCD TV soon and was wondering how much of a difference contrast ratio made? Where does the cutoff occur where a higher ratio just isn't worth the increased cost?"
Yeah, we know stipulations around set placement, surroundings, etc. all come into play here, but why not give Mr. caveman a glimpse into your own experiences? Have you moved from a low contrast set to a high and seen a noticeable improvement? Have you watched your buddy's G Platform plasma and walked away unimpressed? What's your take on the matter?
Got a burning question that you'd love to toss out for Engadget HD (or its readers) to take a look at? Tired of Google's blank stares when you ask for real-world experiences? Hit us up at ask at engadgethd dawt com and keep an eye on this space -- your inquiry could be next.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Phil E @ Apr 2nd 2008 12:29PM
Well from my experience comparing contrast ratios for an LCD and Plasma is like apples and oranges. LCD's typically have a higher ratio than Plasma's but it probably has more to do with the tech since Plasma's typically already have darker blacks and richer pictures.
TrentD @ Apr 2nd 2008 1:57PM
Actually, Phil, the stated contrast ratios are such BS at this point, none of it can be believed.
There's no standardized way to measure contrast ratio, so it's very easy to distort the stats.
At this point, there is so much disinformation and flat out misrepresentation that the contrast ratio specification should be totally disregarded, unless actually measured by a reputable review magazine or site. The manufacturers are in an arms race, and their numbers simply can't be trusted.
corey smith @ Apr 2nd 2008 3:03PM
Unless you're ready to shell out the cash for one of the fancier Panasonic Viera or Pioneer plasmas, you won't be able to tell much of a difference between the two techs. I have a Sony V series LCD with an on screen 1800:1 ratio and depending on the quality of the image I feed it, that thing gets blacker than most plasmas I sell at my job. P.S., Awags, there's no LCD, DLP or Plasma that anyone in their right mind would trade for a Kuro.
rob @ Apr 13th 2008 11:28PM
i just bought an lcd monitor for my pc, 10,000:1 contrast ratio. i was kind of curious how it was to be as most monitors of the same price range was only 800:1. well i found out first hand 10,000:1 is done digitally, when the screen is pretty dark all out the light dims giving a darker black or a higher contrast image.
I personally think that anything above 2400 is "digital" so its completely unnecessary to go any higher, it kind of screws with things like subtitles or dark scenery in a game.
cave12man @ Apr 2nd 2008 12:31PM
first post to my own question...way too much time on my hands i need to get a better job...or does the fact that i have too much time on my hands mean i have a good job because im getting paid to read engadget?? hmmm
cave12man @ Apr 2nd 2008 12:33PM
nevermind phil beat me to it
nathan @ Apr 2nd 2008 12:41PM
Real contrast ratio (not what manufacturers report but what an independent observer measures, like some of the better publications) makes a difference. For me, in a controlled environment, more is always better. On the other hand, for watching TV in a casual way in a regular living room, it doesn't make a big difference beyond a basic level. So I'd pay top dollar for the best real contrast ratio for my critical viewing (Kuro), and I'd pay no premium for my casual viewing (Vizio).
The Honda and the Mercedes both get you from point A to point B. They are not the same experience. Only you can decide what value to place on the difference.
gwlaw99 @ Apr 2nd 2008 1:12PM
I think the only way that you can really tell how good the black level of any television is, is to read reviews by reviewers that you trust (other than buying a bunch of TVs and calibrating them). Also make sure that the reviewer has calibrated in the same way that you will calibrate. If the TV has horrible black levels out of the box that can be made great only with professional calibration, make sure you are willing to pay for professional calibration.
Godskitchen @ Apr 2nd 2008 1:31PM
Dont trust reviews, every single review I have read lately all say the blacks on most modern LCD's are good. Complete rubbish. Either I am the most picky person I know about contrast or you guys/reviewers have less sensitive eyes than me.
The film World Trade Center is unwatchable on all LCD's (its unwatchable anyway, such a poor film). I couldnt watch it on an LCD and ended up watching it on my old CRT.
What I would say is this, until contrast ratios are no longer an issue, ie manafactures dont advertise them anymore, dont bother comparing.
Its like 6000:1, 15000:1, whatever, its all poop. I want my blacks to be black, not blue/gray.
One saying they have 10000:1 over the competitors 7500:1 is like saying my crap doesn't smell as bad as yours. It still stinks but you might not notice it as much. I for one would notice.
Wilbur @ Apr 2nd 2008 1:31PM
Do contrast and black levels really mean anything if there's crushing of dark greys that go along with it? As far as LCDs go, it seems that there's more crushing of blacks as the contrast goes up.
awags @ Apr 2nd 2008 1:41PM
I went from a Hyundai LCD to the Pioneer Kuro PDP-5080 and now instead of seeing bluish hard to see images during dark scenes I can actually make out the picture. My father has a 50" Phillips plasma with 10,000:1 contrast and there is a significant difference between his black levels and mine. You can still see the details on the phillips dark scenes but it doesn't get black, it gets gray. I would not trade my kuro for any lcd I've seen to date.
ben @ Apr 2nd 2008 5:44PM
@conor
First, get firefox for the spellchecker. Second, he means he wouldn't trade the Kuro for a LCD either, his statements don't really contradict.
Achilles @ Apr 2nd 2008 4:07PM
I've seen much deeper blacks from one LCD to another. There is a difference. Number wise (10,000:1, 25,000:1, etc) I can't be certain where it begins to be overpriced and a non-factor. There is definitely a difference in LCDs and their contrast ratios.
This of course factoring in the source, Blu-Ray or satellite HD feed. A color rich Blu-Ray movie will tell the difference on various LCD's that have been calibrated in the same manner, or close to each other as each LCD brand will have different inherited SW and HW specs.
I'm not a plasma person so I don't know how it works with them.
Memnoch @ Apr 2nd 2008 5:34PM
I have to say I have just discovered the plasma world. I did my research and ended up with the Pioneer Kuro. I could not be happier, this tv is amazing. I now understand the contrast, true black that everyone talks about. I own a rear projection, LCD and now a Plasma and the Kuro is God hands down. So good even the SD channels look good.
Britboyj27 @ Apr 2nd 2008 5:55PM
I settled on a Sony 46XBR4 around Christmas thanks to the light levels in my room - is it true black? No, but it is a better black in a lit environment than most plasmas I sell, with the exception of the PX/Z80/85 Panasonics or the Kuros.
At night with the lights off, you can definitely tell it's an LCD and I think in this constant viewing environment, a Samsung or even one of the new LG's would have darker blacks.
Compared to other LCD's though? Other than the Samsung 81 Series, my TV takes the cake IMHO.
AbbadonTD @ Apr 2nd 2008 6:26PM
Okay, lots of good info here, but its lost amoungst fanboyisms...
Contrast ratio is a useless number. There is no solid standard that starts the count, so it means litterally NOTHING. You cannot look at one TV, and then another via contrast ratio, even the same manufacturer!
The only thing you can trust is your own eye. Go to the store, and ask to see something dark on the screens, although, if you want to save time, heres what you will see:
-Pioneer Kuro will be the best
-Panasonics will be good, better than most LCDs, and cheaper, but not as good as a pioneer
-Sony's XBR LCDs will have great blacks, for an LCD, as is probably the best out there from an LCD.
-Samsung's 71 series is right behind there, but can look washed out if set too high, they will grey/blue out really easily
-pretty much the rest are really bad, and if you are really looking for a good tv. I wont even get into opinions about the Funai's and suchs.
Look, there are no secrets or magic out there, spend real money, there is no super saver tv. buy from a confident and well trained store, not a website or a warehouse club. you will find there are lots of good options, and the specs DONT MATTER, use your EYES!
HDtheater @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:21AM
To quote TrentD:
"Actually, Phil, the stated contrast ratios are such BS at this point, none of it can be believed.
There's no standardized way to measure contrast ratio, so it's very easy to distort the stats.
At this point, there is so much disinformation and flat out misrepresentation that the contrast ratio specification should be totally disregarded, unless actually measured by a reputable review magazine or site. The manufacturers are in an arms race, and their numbers simply can't be trusted"
I would like to add by ISF standard measurement of alternating 1-pixel wide vertical lines alternated between pure white and pure black the human eye can only detect about 150:1 contrast this is the only reason lcd's ever look good because they can produce more light per pixel, therefore when looking at a largely bright image with small dark areas they can appear to have decent black level when in fact NONE OF THEM DO!!! If you do the opposite and watch a starry sky you will see what I mean mid-gray to dark-gray never black like a plasma.
If you want deep rich colors here's an extremely simple way to check - simply go up to all the TV's and turn them off the one with the darkest glass ( or screen in the case of an LCD) will have the deepest blacks (Pioneer Kuro, at this time), and therefore the best chance of widest range of colors that can be displayed.
Noah @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:39AM
I have the TH-58PZ750U (Panasonic Viera plasma), and it's amazing. My brother had a top-of-the-line DLP, and it had nothing on the Viera. When the Viera first came, it was horribly uncalibrated, and therefore it looked like any normal TV. As soon as I calibrated it, though, the difference was astounding. I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey on it before and after, and the calibrated super-contrast was unbelievable. The space scenes looked like space rather than space-esque - pure black with the Earth hanging there. The monoliths looked like voids rather than stone blocks, and the Moon monolith stood out just as Kubrick intended it. I have always been a skeptic of the actual benefits of HD, until I watched 2001 (the DVD version, no less!). Believe me, although statistically contrast ratios may seem insignificant, and numerically they seem absurd, a well-calibrated high-end plasma has no current equal (perhaps Brightside technology in the future).
On a side note, yes, I tried the Kuros and the other Pioneers in a side-by-side in a medium-lit room (I varied the lights over a period of time) next to the Viera, and the Viera beat it. Perhaps it was the more vivid colors, but the Viera looked amazing. Yes, both TV's were calibrated as well as possible, and both were being fed the same HD signal.
HDtheater @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:49AM
AbbadonTD - You're on the right track.
Currently Pioneer Kuro is top dog, until their "Extreme Contrast Concept" as in the photo above from CES 2008 becomes a reality or O-LED can be purchased at a decent size and price. No I don't think $2000.00 is a fair price for 11" screen from Sony, their 27" looked amazing but still small and a prototype.
Check out: 1,000,000:1 contrast anyone:
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/4/10/6
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251559/Digital_Journal_TV_First_Look_Organic_LED_and_the_Future_of_Television
GhostDoggy @ Apr 3rd 2008 5:11AM
Flat panel advertised contrast ratios have been proven to be more BS than not. Even if the marketed claims of 15,000 to 1 and higher were true how is anyone outside of a lab equipped with an expensive light measuring device and light controlled environment going to be able to prove the claim?
Besides, flat-panels were designed to be installed in environments where there is an abundant amount of ambient light in the room, which means the minimum level of light output from the panel when trying to produce an all-black condition will always be trumpted by the ambient light level.
And in the environment of perception, perceived blacks do not correlate to actual blacks. So while something appears to be showing up on the screen as good blacks with a lot of bright other objects in the picture and plenty of ambient room light, those perceived blacks may be incredibly terrible when trying to watch something with a lot of dark scenes in it.
LCD is an always-on technology and the technique used to reproduce a black condition is to attempt to block and hide that always-on light source. Plasma, being a phosphor, exhibits persistence of glow even after it is not wanted and as a result elevated the floor for minimum black levels. DLP and LCoS are just like LCD in the condition that it makes blacks by blocking and hiding light.
CRT and SED work on a system that simply doesn't generate light when it is not called for. Of course politics will keep SED from coming to fruition anytime soon. And please remember that your eyes can take as much as 25-30 minutes to become sensitive again to low light detal after being saturated by ambient lighting.
Paladin @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:16PM
Great posts, these people know their subject matter.
I'd agree the Sony XBR 4 has the best blacks I've seen on an LCD, although the Local LED Lit Samsungs are very good too. The Kuro's blow everything else way on contrast and black levels not to mention everything else but are very expensive although the Panasonic blacks are nothing to sneeze at as well.
Contrast on most other panels would be not nearly as good as advertisers would have you believe. HDTV's still have a long way to go as far as blacks and contrast in most cases.
Jaynghis Tron @ Apr 3rd 2008 7:23PM
i own both a Samsung HP-T4264 plasma and a Panasonic TH-42PX75U plasma, with Blu-Ray and OTA HD content, i can't tell any difference whatsoever. however, they both are in different rooms of the house with different lighting situations. Contrast ratio is a nonsensical number without some kind of standardization in measurement. i'd recommend getting some real feedback from real people, and looking at Televisions in an actual real-world environment, not a retail store...everything looks terrible there, anyway.
jon @ Apr 5th 2008 8:38PM
Why are light levels so hard to measure? Put the TV on full black and then full white while you have a camera pressed against it. Look at the two exposures.
Ambient light (from other lights in the room or from whites on the screen bouncing off the walls) will limit the usefulness of high contrast ratios.
I agree that black crush is a big problem with some LCDs.
jon @ Apr 5th 2008 8:57PM
A good digital camera can do 8 stops (2**8) and the eye can do (2**18 = 1 million to 1).
Kevin G @ Apr 7th 2008 3:21PM
ISF calibrations require a colorimeter that is way more sensitive than a digital camera, and way more expensive.