contrast ratio is meaningless?
by JimmyFukyushu - 3/7/12 6:50 PM
In Reply to: Why . . . by Coryphaeus
The first criteria below:
"Contrast ratio: Meaningless
While contrast ratio itself (the difference between the brightest part of the image and darkest) is the most important aspect of the overall picture quality of a TV, the numbers supplied by manufacturers are completely useless. For one, there is no standard way to measure contrast ratio, so companies often just make up numbers to suit the marketing department's purposes.
Worse still, you can't judge contrast ratio in a store. The harsh lighting of most retailers masks true contrast ratio. So a cheap LCD in a store may seem better looking than the plasma right next to it, when, in fact, at home the opposite would be true."
This might have been better if rephrased but reading this as is , makes the entire article bs. Even if there isnt a universally accepted way to measure contrast ratio, there is still the common sense way, by your own eyes. TV brands using numbers to show this is by no means futile. The numbers are by no means a way to show you the actual contrast level, they are there to allow you to use the numbers as a standard of comparison to other models using the same method.
I have yet to see a low contrast rato TV look better than a high contrast ratio TV ( comparing by the numbers provided by the manufacturers). For example, a standard old LCD TV that has a contrast ratio of 1500:1 is put next to the LG OLED TV that has a (although infinite) 100,000:1 contrast ratio. The difference is very noticeable.
The only thing I agree with the article is the part about energy consumption.
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)
Staff pick