Picture Depth and 3-Dimensionality.

[Douglas9]

In reviews of TVs I frequently see reference to picture depth and 3-dimensionality. Which characteristics of the set influence these properties and can any adjustments be made to improve them? Is it perhaps just an inherent quality of the set and not improvable by us? Are there any 40/42inch models particularly impressive with respect to these properties? I would be interested in any comments.

Douglas9.

 

[Andrew Everard]

It's really down to sharpness, resolution, contrast and lack of noise, which make more obvious the depth of focus/depth of field obtained from the camera originally shooting the material.

It's one of my pet hates when I see a review of a TV saying it has better depth of field than another set, or that it makes distant objects appear sharper - a TV just can't do this, but rather can only reveal what the original cinematographer/cameraperson was trying to achieve.

Hope that helps...

 

[Douglas9]

Many thanks, Andrew. I see you mention sharpness - I've sometimes seen statements like 'Don't turn the sharpness control up!' but might that ,in fact ,help in the case of these properties?

Douglas9.

 

[Andrew Everard]

No, I meant inherent sharpness, not generated sharpness. Think of it in terms of a digital picture correctly focused in your camera against one that's a bit blurry but sharpened using the controls in Photoshop. No contest, really...

 

[Bazzy]

Hi Andrew,

I am reading quite a few opinions from folks who have seen the new Samsung Luxia sets, and many of them describe the picture as looking almost or very 3D like (even compared to a G9 Kuro) - if that is different from depth, how does it work? I was always led to be believe that better the blacks, the more depth and 3D a set will look so I just assumed a Kuro would be the very best at this? What do these new Samsungs do that the Kuro does not to give such a "3D like" picture?ÿ

ÿ

Bazzy!ÿ

 

[Andrew Everard]

I assume that the sets have better contrast, resolution and sharpness, with less picture noise. Having seen some of the new panels demonstrated by Samsung last December in Korea - though obviously not side-by-side with the Kuros, I have to say they did look rather promising.

But it's not depth, as of course we're talking about a two-dimensional picture. What the sets reveal is more of the sense of perspective in the original image, whereas others, by being deficient in one or more of the parameters I outlined above, produce a picture with less information for the eye.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Personally speaking. Id say the Kuro is the tv with TRUE depth of field. Samsungs tend to use some form of CONTRAST ENHANCE making it 'appear' more 3d when all its really doing is changing the colours (So theyre NOT as the maker intended, and blacks and whites become 'clipped')

Contrast Enhance and suchlike tend to also lose true detail in the picture (very fine detail in peoples faces, or on a sandy beach etc)

Ive also found (on my Pioneer at least) that depth of field greatly increased using a 16 core braided mains cable and a decent mains conditioner (Mira and Sigmas i use)

 

[Messiah]

aliEnRIK:
Ive also found (on my Pioneer at least) that depth of field greatly increased using a 16 core braided mains cable and a decent mains conditioner (Mira and Sigmas i use)

It seems Trevor79 now has a genuine sidekick

 

[Andrew Everard]

aliEnRIK:Personally speaking. Id say the Kuro is the tv with TRUE depth of field.

(snip)

Ive also found (on my Pioneer at least) that depth of field greatly increased using a 16 core braided mains cable and a decent mains conditioner (Mira and Sigmas i use)

You see, that's the point I was making. It's not possible to vary the depth of field on a TV, because a TV doesn't have depth of field (whatever many reviewers may suggest). That's down to the lens originally used to shoot whatever you're watching...

 

[aliEnRIK]

Andrew Everard:
aliEnRIK:Personally speaking. Id say the Kuro is the tv with TRUE depth of field.

(snip)

Ive also found (on my Pioneer at least) that depth of field greatly increased using a 16 core braided mains cable and a decent mains conditioner (Mira and Sigmas i use)

You see, that's the point I was making. It's not possible to vary the depth of field on a TV, because a TV doesn't have depth of field (whatever many reviewers may suggest). That's down to the lens originally used to shoot whatever you're watching...

And I agree with you Andrew. What im saying the cable and conditioner do is allow for less ERRORS displaying the picture (and creating a picture more like what it SHOULD be which in turn LOOKS more 3 dimensional (Even though all its trying to do is display the pic as the maker intended)). It hasnt added anything, just taken a lot of the original errors away in the process

 

[aliEnRIK]

Messiah:aliEnRIK:
Ive also found (on my Pioneer at least) that depth of field greatly increased using a 16 core braided mains cable and a decent mains conditioner (Mira and Sigmas i use)

It seems Trevor79 now has a genuine sidekick

Conditioners I understand as they 'condition' the mains signal going into the component (Whatever it is)

Mains cables I never believed myself until I tried them (And they have, 'hand on heart', made a HUGH difference to my system)

Im pretty sure I was here BEFORE Trev' though

 

[Messiah]

aliEnRIK:
Im pretty sure I was here BEFORE Trev' though

I have been sad enough to check and he became a member in March compared to your August so you are going to have to settle for being Robin I'm afraid

There are worse fates........

 

[ElectroMan]

aliEnRIK:Andrew Everard:
aliEnRIK:Personally speaking. Id say the Kuro is the tv with TRUE depth of field.

(snip)

Ive also found (on my Pioneer at least) that depth of field greatly increased using a 16 core braided mains cable and a decent mains conditioner (Mira and Sigmas i use)

You see, that's the point I was making. It's not possible to vary the depth of field on a TV, because a TV doesn't have depth of field (whatever many reviewers may suggest). That's down to the lens originally used to shoot whatever you're watching...

And I agree with you Andrew. What im saying the cable and conditioner do is allow for less ERRORS displaying the picture (and creating a picture more like what it SHOULD be which in turn LOOKS more 3 dimensional (Even though all its trying to do is display the pic as the maker intended)). It hasnt added anything, just taken a lot of the original errors away in the process

I think you're confusing depth of field with picture quality. If a scene in a film has limited depth of field (e.g. something close to the camera is in focus, but the background is out of focus), then it cannot be increased no matter how good the TV, cables etc (although apparently Pioneer have some new processing system that could, allegedly, do something along those lines - not sure where/if that will end up now)!

Anyone wanting more information should look here.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Well im not confusing it as such. But yes, I suppose technically im taking more about picture quality

HOWEVER, if a tv is displaying tons of little 'errors' then the picture will look almost FLAT and 2 dimensional (If you see where im coming from there) . So a tv displaying LESS errors will produce a more '3 dimensional' looking picture. If you wish to call that 'picture quality' then fair play.

 

[ElectroMan]

Yes, I see what you mean.

And regarding Andrew's comments about reviewers misusing 'depth of field', this WHF hdmi cable review says 'It lacks the depth of field and rapid-action smoothness of the best' ! I assume it means sharpness?

(I've edited the link 3 times - hope I've got it right now!)

 

[aliEnRIK]

ElectroMan:
Yes, I see what you mean.

And regarding Andrew's comments about reviewers misusing 'depth of field', this WHF hdmi cable review says 'It lacks the depth of field and rapid-action smoothness of the best' ! I assume it means sharpness?

(I've edited the link 3 times - hope I've got it right now!)

I hope it wasnt Andrew that reviewed it

 

[Andrew Everard]

aliEnRIK:
I hope it wasnt Andrew that reviewed it

No, it wasn't.

 

[Anonymous]

Image processing enhancements can create the "illusion" of increased dimensionality, detail and perceived sharpness. Detail, contour and local contrast type enhancement processing is different to the old "sharpness" function particularly with native HD material. Some manufacturers tweak their processing to create a particular image "look" that they feel helps differentiate their product when compared to competing product on the showroom floor. Some of these features may still be active even when the user setting is 0.

I'm not sure these features make for a better image per se but some people may prefer the processed image. I guess it comes down to personal taste but ideally a should have the adbility to defeat enahcement features if desired.

Dasp

 

[aliEnRIK]

Andrew Everard:aliEnRIK:
I hope it wasnt Andrew that reviewed it

No, it wasn't.

Im only pullin your leg mate

 

[Andrew Everard]

I realised.