Display
Technology Shoot-Out
Comparing CRT, LCD, Plasma and
DLP Displays
Dr. Raymond M. Soneira
President, DisplayMate
Technologies Corp.
Copyright © 1990-2005 by DisplayMate Technologies
Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
This article,
or any part thereof, may not be copied, reproduced, mirrored, distributed or
incorporated
into any other work without the prior written permission of DisplayMate
Technologies Corporation
Part I – The
Primary Specs
Article Links: Overview Part I Part II Part III Part IV
Printing: If your browser is
improperly printing some pages with text cutoff
on the right edge then either print
in Landscape mode or reduce the font
size (View Menu - Text Size) and
margins (File Menu - Page Setup).
Introduction
We are in a
renaissance of display technologies. Ten years ago the CRT (Cathode Ray Tube)
was the single prevalent display technology. Today CRT, LCD (Liquid Crystal
Display), Plasma, DLP (Digital Light Processing using Texas Instrument’s
Digital Micromirror Device DMD) and LCoS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) are mature
and mainstream technologies, with many more trying to emerge from the
development lab and into significant market share. With all of these choices
come the questions: how do they differ and which one should we get?
To provide some substantive answers my company DisplayMate
Technologies performed an in-depth comparison between these different display
technologies in order to analyze the relative strengths and weaknesses of each.
This is actually one of our specialties. Our DisplayMate products generate proprietary test
patterns for setting up, tuning up, testing and evaluating displays and
projectors. They’re used widely throughout the computer and video industries
worldwide and have been part of the InfoComm Projection ShootOut event and
software since 1997, so they are accepted by most manufacturers as reference
standards for comparison. Direct-view and rear-projection units were included but front projectors
were excluded because they require different measurement and evaluation
criteria.
We used a combination of high-end laboratory
instrumentation, advanced diagnostic test patterns, and old fashioned viewing
tests to compare them simultaneously in a side-by-side Shoot-Out. We
chose the top performer for each technology from the DisplayMate Best Video Hardware
Guide (see www.displaymate.com), which includes our selections for the best
video hardware in 40 categories. The candidates included a 40” direct-view LCD
(NEC
LCD4000), a 61” Plasma (NEC
61XM2), a 50” DLP Rear Projection (Optoma RD-50),
and a much smaller CRT 19” professional High Definition studio monitor (Sony
PVM-20L5), which was used as the reference standard for color and
gray-scale accuracy. Only the Optoma RD-50 is marketed as a home theater
display (it delivers outstanding picture quality), although the NEC Plasma
61XM2 is carried as an OEM unit by some of the very best home theater specialty
manufacturers (in some cases with additional front-end electronics). The NEC
LCD4000 is marketed as a commercial computer display, but it's an outstanding
large-screen LCD panel and will perform extremely well with video when
interfaced with the appropriate front-end electronics. The Sony PVM-20L5 is a
standard size CRT studio monitor and was selected as the reference display
because it delivers virtually perfect performance.
LCoS is another upcoming display technology that works as
a reflective mode LCD. While there are many variations on LCoS technology, only
JVC’s D-ILA can be classified as mature and mainstream. It has been used in
JVC’s front projectors since 1998. JVC recently announced rear-projection
versions of its D-ILA, which meet our selection criteria, but aren’t included
since weren’t available until after testing was completed. Most other attempts
at LCoS have been unsuccessful. (Most recently, Philips and Intel pulled out in
October 2004). On the flip side, Sony has recently announced very promising
LCoS products. Sony’s SXRD is now shipping as a front projector and a rear
projection version will be available in early 2005.
It’s important to emphasize that this article is designed
as a comparison of four different display technologies and not as an editorial
review of the above models. By comparing a top performing product in each
technology we are effectively examining the state-of-the-art for that
technology. We will be looking at fundamental image and picture quality
performance issues and not the implementation details or idiosyncrasies of any
particular model.
Outline
of the Article:
The article is divided into four parts: in Part I we
measure, analyze and compare primary specs like Black-Level, Color Temperature,
Peak Brightness, Dynamic Range, and Display Contrast for each display
technology. In Part II
we’ll continue with the Gray-Scale, Gamma, Primary Chromaticities and Color
Gamut to see how they all affect color accuracy and can introduce color hue and
saturation errors. In Part
III we’ll study the complex world of display artifacts - just a fancy name
for peculiarities that don’t belong in an image - for each of the display
technologies. In Part
IV we’ll analyze and assess each of the display
technologies in detail and tie together all of the results from Parts I to IV.
How
We Tested:
The central
concept for this article was to carefully set up, test and evaluate all of the
display technologies at the same time under identical conditions and
procedures, using advanced instrumentation where appropriate. All of the
displays were set up side-by-side for simultaneous comparative viewing in a
completely dark lab treated with black felt to eliminate reflections. The
simultaneous viewing allowed us to detect subtle differences between the
displays. We used computer and video-based test patterns, plus DVD, television,
and computer applications. We used a wide selection of test patterns at the HD
resolutions of 1920x1080 and 1280x720 from our own DisplayMate for Windows
Multimedia Edition (see www.displaymate.com). This product generates a
large set of advanced diagnostic test patterns from scale-free mathematical equations so they work
for any Resolution and Aspect Ratio up to 4096x4096. We also used a pre-release version
of the DisplayMate Professional DVD, which has DisplayMate’s proprietary test patterns on
DVD (available mid 2005).
For DVI and
component video HD signals we used an ATI
Radeon 9800 Pro with an ATI HDTV Component
Video Adapter, which provides high quality computer generated 720p and
1080i component video outputs YPBPR. This
allowed us to generate HD DisplayMate test patterns for the television video
inputs. In order to do simultaneous display testing we used distribution
amplifiers and switchers from Kramer
Electronics. Our reference standard was the Sony Professional Multi-format
High Definition studio monitor PVM-20L5,
which was carefully calibrated for testing. Each display was compared to this
monitor for color and gray-scale accuracy and overall image quality.
Instrumentation
for Parts I and II:
All of the
photometry and colorimetry measurements were made with a Konica
Minolta CS-1000, which is a high-end laboratory Spectroradiometer with a
narrow 1 degree acceptance angle for light emitted by the display. This
advanced instrument costs $25,000. Most of the photometers and color analyzers
that are used for display measurements are actually accurate only for CRTs
because they rely on filters calibrated to the light spectrum of a CRT. Some
filter-based instruments are designed and calibrated for other display
technologies, but because of the wide variation in light spectra for non-CRTs,
these instruments need to be used with caution and qualified for each
application with a high-end Spectroradiometer. (While, in principle,
filter-based instruments can be very accurate, in practice manufacturing
filters that accurately match the CIE functions over a broad range of
wavelengths is extraordinarily difficult and expensive, so reasonably priced
instruments have compromises that can affect their accuracy when used with some
display technologies. High-end filter based instruments can be as accurate as
Spectroradiometers.)
Most
instruments also have broad acceptance angles that are not accurate for many
flat panel technologies because the display’s light distribution can vary with
both viewing angle and intensity. The NIST
(National Institute of Standards and Technology – the new name for the National
Bureau of Standards) and VESA (Video Electronics
Standards Association) specify a maximum acceptance angle of 2 degrees for
measuring flat panels (in the Flat Panel Display Measurements Standard). The
Spectroradiometer measures the light spectrum directly and was crucial for
making precise comparisons between the different display technologies. The
Spectroradiometer and all of the displays (except for the Sony) were generously
provided on a long-term loan basis by their manufacturers. We offer special
thanks to all of them for agreeing to participate. It was especially
challenging to get all of this high-end hardware together at the same time.
Black-Level
We start off the comparison with an item that doesn’t get
all of the attention that it deserves: the display’s ability to produce black.
This capability of suppressing light output turns out to be a major challenge
for all of the display technologies. It’s important because a poor black-level
lifts the bottom end of the display’s intensity-scale and introduces errors in
both intensity and color throughout the entire lower end of the scale, not just
at the very bottom. All displays produce some light in the form of a very
dark-gray when asked to produce a black. This background light is added to all
of the colors and intensities that the display is asked to produce. This washes
out the dark grays and also the dark colors. For example, dark reds will
instead appear as shades of pink. What’s more, if the display isn’t properly
adjusted, the dark background glow will have a color tint instead of appearing
neutral gray, and this will add a color cast to the entire lower end of the
intensity scale, which is particularly noticeable in dark images.
No display can produce a true black so it’s important to
know just how close it can actually get. CRTs do extremely well but the flat
panels all struggle with black, yet they do pretty well with peak brightness,
so the black-level can be a great differentiator. The actual black-level
produced by a display is almost never reported in manufacturer’s spec sheets or
published reviews, yet for most applications it’s actually much more important
than peak white brightness, which seems to get most of the attention.
Black-level should be the single most important spec after screen size if
you’re working in multimedia, imaging, photography, home theater, or in any
environment with controlled or subdued lighting.
Black-Level
Control
All displays should have a Black-Level Control to allow
the black-level to be accurately adjusted. If it’s too low then the darkest
portions of the gray-scale will be lost; if it’s too high then the display’s
precious minimum background light level is needlessly increased. In either case
the gray-scale is distorted. The default factory value will almost certainly be
inaccurate because the proper setting varies with the make and model of the
graphics board, DVD player, Set Top Box, or whatever signal source you’re
using. The black-level will also vary with the operating mode you select, such
as the color-depth for a computer graphics board or progressive / interlaced
scanning for a DVD player. Many analog and digital video modes also have a
non-zero black-level offset that needs to be taken into account. The only way
to properly adjust the black-level is with specialized test patterns, and we
used the set in our own DisplayMate
for Windows (all editions). One subtle point to bear in mind: in some cases
it’s necessary to intentionally misadjust the Black-Level Control in order to
compensate for some other display parameter or to improve the visibility of the
gray-scale under bright ambient lighting conditions. We’ll discuss this further
in Parts II and III.
For most displays the black-level is adjusted using a
control inappropriately labeled “Brightness.” Further confusing this issue is
that many LCDs now have a control labeled “Brightness” that instead varies the
intensity of the backlight – at least that’s closer to the true meaning of
“brightness.” Unfortunately, most LCDs lack any form of black-level control –
they’re fixed at a factory set value. The NEC LCD4000 in this article is one of
a small number of LCDs that actually provides a real black-level control and
even labels it “Black-Level.” However, they left the control out for the DVI
input. It’s unfortunate that the DVI inputs for many displays (all
technologies) are often missing some essential color and gray-scale controls,
which makes it impossible to properly adjust them. This is due to the
complexity of digital signal processing, which we’ll discuss in Part III. This
situation should improve with each subsequent generation of components.
Black-Level Measurements
Here are the black-levels measured with the Konica
Minolta CS-1000 Spectroradiometer. It measures brightness by matching the eye’s
own spectral sensitivity to light of different wavelengths. The photometric
term for this form of brightness is called Luminance. (We will be
informally referring to Luminance as brightness and will use the two terms
interchangeably throughout the article.) The measurements are shown for cd/m2
(candelas per square meter), a luminance unit that used to be called
“nits,” but has been deprecated in favor of cd/m2.To convert
to another common luminance unit, foot-Lamberts, fL, divide by 3.43. The screen
was set to the proper black-level with a very sensitive full-field black-level
test pattern. The black-level must be set precisely so that it’s neither too
high nor too low. The measurements were made in a completely dark lab, so there
was no contamination from ambient room lighting.
Black-Level Measurements
CRT
Sony PVM-20L5
|
LCD
NEC LCD4000
|
Plasma
NEC 61XM2
|
DLP Rear Projection
Optoma RD-50
|
0.01 cd/m2
|
0.72 cd/m2 Max Backlight
0.27 cd/m2 Min Backlight
|
0.42 cd/m2
|
0.26 cd/m2
|
The CRT wins by a huge factor of about 25. It barely
produces any detectable light when set to black. The flat panels all produce a
noticeable dark-gray glow for black. The CRT’s enormous black-level advantage
is the major reason why it remains the technology of choice for home theater
perfectionists. (Note that the black-level luminance of a CRT can be reduced
even more by turning the Black-Level Control further down into a
“blacker-than-black” regime, but this will cause a loss of the lower end of the
gray-scale.) There are two values listed for the LCD: one when the backlight is
set to maximum brightness and the other for minimum brightness. So for an LCD
equipped with a backlight control you can get a darker black if you are willing
to accept a lower peak white brightness. In many instances that is a fabulous
tradeoff. Some projection units include an iris aperture control that can
reduce the light output from the projection lamp or lens for a similar effect.
A related technique is the use of dark glass or dark screen material. When the
image comes from the rear this can also substantially increase image contrast
because reflected ambient light originating in the room has to travel through
the screen layer twice but light from the display goes through only once. CRTs
have always taken advantage of this technique, and it’s also one reason for the
Optoma’s relatively dark black-level. We’ll discuss this further in Part IV.
Ambient
Lighting
It’s important to emphasize that these measurements were
all made in a completely dark lab. Any ambient room lighting will reflect off
the screens and add to the black-levels listed above. How much will depend on
the quality of the anti-reflection coatings, surface treatments, and other
light absorbing techniques that each display is utilizing, see Part IV. It will
also depend on the particulars of the lighting distribution in the room. The
end result is that ambient lighting tends to equalize the differences between
the black-levels in displays. In particular, ambient light will quickly erode
the CRT’s huge black-level advantage. So the more important that a dark
black-level is to your application the more you’ll need to control ambient
lighting. The reflectivity and color of the walls in the room can also have a
major impact, particularly with front projectors. Completely black walls will
eliminate spurious light reflections (a neutral dark gray will work almost as
well). Note that in brightly lit stores it’s virtually impossible to evaluate
the relative black-levels between different models. Another reason is that they
are almost never properly adjusted.
Black-Level
Interpretation
There are two major issues
for black-level luminance: how low does it really need to be and what steps can
be taken to reduce its visibility. Home theater perfectionists insist on a
completely dark viewing environment because that’s how movie theaters operate.
Under these conditions any noticeable black-level luminance adversely affects image
quality and can also be an annoying distraction. The real problem is that the
eye’s sensitivity varies over an incredibly wide luminance range (6 orders of
magnitude or 1 million to 1 for color vision at indoor lighting levels) due to
several light adaptation mechanisms, so the threshold for the detection of
black-level luminance will vary with the average scene brightness over a period
that can extend from several seconds up to several minutes for color vision
(and half an hour for complete dark adaptation, which adds an additional 4
orders of magnitude or 10,000 to 1 in sensitivity for black-and-white night
vision). For typical movie content with varying scene brightness the eye will
be operating at reduced sensitivity and is less likely to notice the
black-level luminance in dark scenes, but the odds go up considerably with a
perpetually dark movie like Dark City. Note that if you sit in a pitch
black room with a display showing a completely black image or test pattern, you
will eventually see the black-level luminance on even the best CRT display or
projector because the eye’s sensitivity will progressively increase with time
as the result of dark adaptation.
But the real question is
how do video displays and projectors compare with a movie theater. Kodak motion
picture film has maximum densities of roughly 4.0 (for the standard Vision
Color Print Film 2383) and 5.0 (for the high-end Vision Premier Color Print
Film 2393). This corresponds to Dynamic Range values of 10,000 and 100,000,
although production movie prints will not reach these maximum values. With
typical exposure and development, movie prints can be expected to deliver
roughly a factor of 10 less than their spec maximum. A specialist with Eastman
Kodak provided Minority Report as an example of a motion picture that
delivers the darkest state-of-the-art blacks, with actual print densities
reaching 4.0, equivalent to a Dynamic Range of 10,000. As we'll see below, CRTs
typically fall in the range of 10,000 to 30,000 for Dynamic Range, so they can
actually perform significantly better than any motion picture film (if they are
carefully set up). The best that non-CRT displays and projectors can do now is
about 3,000, so their performance is better than standard grade motion picture
film but well below what the best films deliver. The higher the Dynamic Range
the darker the black-level for a given peak brightness. Motion picture theaters
typically operate between 41 to 75 cd/m2 (SMPTE 196M), which is
comparable to front projectors but much lower than the direct view and rear
projection displays considered here (see below), so different eye adaptation
levels apply.
The final issue is what to
do when the black-level luminance becomes noticeable. For front projectors you
can get some help by switching to a screen with below unity gain like the Stewart Filmscreen GrayHawk. If you’ve
exhausted all of the options discussed previously then lighting the area that’s
behind the display or surrounds the projection screen will activate the eye’s
light adaptation mechanism and reduce the visibility of the black-level
luminance. Make sure that none of the light falls on the screen itself and use
the lowest lighting level that’s needed. The walls should be a neutral white or
gray so as not to upset the overall color balance. The light should also have
the same Color Temperature as the white-point of the display, which is
discussed next.
Color Temperature
Most people are aware that
white is not a single color – there is no such thing as “pure white.” Instead
there is a whole range of colors that can be accurately referred to as white.
However, if we are to have accurate color reproduction it is necessary to
define one or more standard whites, which then serve as a point of reference
for generating all of the other colors. One way to do this is by applying
laboratory physics using a specially defined “black-body” raised to a specified
temperature, which is referred to as a color temperature. (A black-body
is a specially prepared perfect thermal radiator with a light spectrum that
depends only on temperature.) The temperature is based on an absolute scale,
called degrees Kelvin, or K. Each temperature produces a known spectrum that
yields a unique color with specific chromaticity coordinates (a quantitative
measure of color that we’ll discuss further in Part II). As the temperature
increases the changing chromaticity coordinates trace out a black-body curve.
Whites typically fall in the range from 5,000 K (a reddish-white) to 10,000 K
(a bluish-white).
Most
computer and television displays come from the factory set to a relatively high
color temperature, which produces a white that has a bit of a blue cast,
similar to “cool white” fluorescent bulbs. This is done because most displays
produce a brighter image at higher color temperatures. The standard cool white
is 9300 K, but many displays come set even higher. For multimedia, photography
and television the standard color temperature is 6500 K, which is roughly the
color of natural daylight. For optimum color accuracy, a display for these
applications needs to be set to a white-point of 6500 K. More precisely to the
chromaticity coordinates of CIE Illuminant D65 or D6500, which corresponds
to average natural daylight for an overcast sky at noon and includes a blue sky
component added to a blackbody spectrum. On the other hand, for many
non-imaging computer applications, particularly under typical office
fluorescent lighting, 9300 K is a better choice. Note that there are other color
temperature standards, for example, 5000 K is used in graphic arts because it
corresponds to typical indoor lighting that is a mixture of incandescent
lighting and sunlight. Note also that if an image is designed or color balanced
at one color temperature and then viewed at a different color temperature all
of the colors in the image will be shifted by varying amounts. For example,
reds need to be overemphasized in TVs operated at 9300 K in order to counteract
the blue cast that is imparted to flesh tones, particularly facial complexions.
This so called “red push” introduces other color errors. We’ll discuss this
further in Part II.
For all of our tests the
white point for each display was set as close to D6500 as possible without
resorting to any internal service modes. Many displays have a Color Temperature
control, but often it isn’t very accurate. Colors that lie close to, but not
exactly on the black-body curve can be assigned a color temperature value that
produces the closest color match to a black-body. This is referred to as a Correlated
Color Temperature. Below are correlated color temperature values measured
with the Konica Minolta CS-1000 Spectroradiometer and a window test pattern set
to peak white.
Color Temperature Measurements
CRT
Sony PVM-20L5
|
LCD
NEC LCD4000
|
Plasma
NEC 61XM2
|
DLP Rear Projection
Optoma RD-50
|
6480 K
|
6,580 K Computer Inputs
10,250
K Video Inputs
|
6626 K
|
6786 K
|
The results
were all relatively close to D6500, except for the video inputs on the NEC
LCD4000, which did not provide any adjustments for the white point (Color
Temperature or RGB Drive), so it was stuck at a high value. The color
temperature (and chromaticity coordinates) shouldn’t change as the gray-scale
intensity changes, but it always does to some degree because of slight
differences between the primary red, green and blue channels. The variation of
color with intensity is called Color Tracking (because the primary color
intensities need to track each other accurately) or Gray-Scale Tracking
(because gray-scale variations are tracked with intensity) and one benchmark of
a good display is a small variation. All of the displays did quite well with
Color Tracking but it’s nice to see end-user controls that allow you to easily
correct for it. Only the CRT and Plasma models included end-user RGB Drive and
Bias controls needed to make these adjustments.
One serious
problem with color temperature measurements and specifications is that they
don’t actually specify a unique color, only the closest match to a black-body
radiator. So there can be a considerable variation in color (chromaticity
coordinates) when color temperature alone is used to measure a gray-scale. As
are result color temperature measurements and specifications can be quite
misleading and should be used together with chromaticity coordinates. We’ll
discuss these issues in detail in Part II of the article.
Peak Brightness
For most
typical viewing conditions these display technologies all deliver more than
enough light for comfortable viewing, so a higher peak brightness isn’t
necessarily better. In fact for most of the viewing tests we turned down the
brightness somewhat for each display. On the other hand, if you have bright
ambient lighting conditions (that cannot be reduced) then high brightness may
be an important requirement. Note that using a display or projector with more peak brightness than
what you need often results in a higher black-level luminance, which is
undesirable, however, phosphor and lamp aging will reduce brightness over time,
so some reserve is necessary.
The above
not withstanding, brightness is still the number that’s at the top of just
about every spec sheet and published review. There are NIST/VESA, ANSI and
ITU-R standards for measuring the brightness of peak white, but they all have some “wiggle room” that
allow the numbers to be exaggerated. Worse, many manufacturer’s spec sheets
don’t reference any standard so they are free to choose their own procedures.
Frequently, what happens is every single control is turned up to maximum
including Brightness, Contrast, RGB Drive, and any other control that can
increase the light output. Under these conditions essentially all displays
produce horrendous image quality, are completely uncalibrated and effectively
unusable. For these reasons you shouldn’t place too much weight on brightness
and contrast specifications or make buying decisions based on them. They can be
off by as much as a factor of two or more from objective measurements. If
brightness matters to you then only pay attention to values measured under
identical standard conditions. Press reviews are generally the best source.
Peak
Brightness Control
The
Contrast Control is the primary means for adjusting peak brightness and the
top-end of the intensity scale. (It’s also inappropriately named because it
affects the display’s brightness and not its contrast. We’ll discuss this in
Part II.) If it’s set too high then two or more of the top-end steps in a
gray-scale test pattern will reach peak brightness and merge together. This loss
of gray-scale is called either White Saturation (a soft limit for CRTs
and LCDs) or Clipping (a hard limit for Plasmas and DLPs). The only way to properly adjust the
Contrast Control is with a specialized White Saturation or Extreme Gray-Scale
test pattern, which is provided in all editions of DisplayMate for Windows. In
many applications the display doesn’t need to be operated at peak brightness.
In fact, some displays are now so bright that they may bother your eyes under
typical indoor lighting conditions, so you will feel compelled to dim them. To
reduce peak brightness turn down the Contrast Control, or in the case of an
LCD, a backlight “Brightness Control.” Note that when you lower the Contrast
Control the Black-Level Control may need some adjustment because they interact.
Some
technologies, particularly LCDs, also suffer from White Compression,
where the gray-scale steps get closer and closer together near peak white (this
will be discussed in Parts II and IV). Although this was not the case with the
NEC LCD4000, it’s a severe problem on some LCDs. If you experience this problem
then lower the Contrast Control rather than the backlight control. This will
move peak white below the problem “S” region of the LCD’s Transfer
Characteristic (this
will be discussed in Parts II and IV). If that doesn’t correct the problem then
it’s most likely signal clipping in the input electronics rather than
compression or saturation. Many displays lack sufficient headroom near peak
white. To correct that reduce the input signal level using external
electronics.
Peak
Brightness Measurements
For our
tests all of the monitors were set up identically: first the white-point was
set as close to D6500
as possible, the black-levels were carefully adjusted as discussed above, then
the contrast control was set with a DisplayMate White Saturation test pattern
so that no more than 2% of the gray-scale was lost near peak white. Of course
it’s better not to lose any gray-scale, but for some technologies, like LCDs,
this is often not possible, so 2% is a well-defined “red-line” for a precise
specification. (Dr. Edward F. Kelley of the NIST,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and I are working on a standard
for measuring peak brightness that has no wiggle room.) For CRTs there are
additional requirements on focus and screen regulation, but they did not affect
the Sony monitor. This specification is more stringent than any of the above
standards. The values obtained with this procedure will generally be less, and
sometimes much less, than what you’ll see listed on a spec sheet. Here are the
brightness levels measured with the Konica Minolta CS-1000 Spectroradiometer
and a window test pattern set to peak white:
Peak Brightness Measurements
CRT
Sony PVM-20L5
|
LCD
NEC LCD4000
|
Plasma
NEC 61XM2
|
DLP Rear Projection
Optoma RD-50
|
176 cd/m2
|
428 cd/m2 Max Backlight
160 cd/m2 Min Backlight
|
212 cd/m2 5% APL
133 cd/m2 25% APL
81 cd/m2 50% APL
53 cd/m2 100% APL
|
359 cd/m2
|
The LCD has
two entries, which depend on the backlight intensity setting. At its highest
available color temperature setting of 9023 K the LCD produced 471 cd/m2, more than what NEC lists on their
spec sheet, which is both unusual and commendable.
The values
for the Plasma depend on the Average Picture Level, APL, which is the
average intensity level for each of the red, green and blue sub-pixels over the
entire screen. For example, a full screen of peak intensity white has an APL of
100%, but it’s only 33% for pure green (because red and blue are off). In our
case APL refers to the percentage of pixels that are set to peak white. When 5%
of the pixels are at peak white, the brightness is 212 cd/m2. As the APL increases power and
heat dissipation restrictions reduce the maximum brightness that can be safely
produced so the display automatically reduces the peak brightness. When 100% of the pixels are at peak
white, the brightness is only 53 cd/m2, which requires subdued ambient lighting for good viewing.
For most computer applications the APL is rather high (because word processors
and spread sheets, for example, use a peak white background) but for most video
applications it is relatively low (because the images are generally dimmer and
are colored, not gray or white). As a result, Plasma displays are generally
used for video.
Dynamic Range
Dynamic
Range is simply the ratio of peak white luminance to black-level luminance that
a display can produce. The values are measured separately – one screen for peak
white and the other for the black-level. This is frequently referred to as
“contrast,” “full field contrast,” or “full on/off contrast,” but the term
contrast should be reserved for measurements on a single image, not on
different screens. The ratio of the peak white to black-level luminance values
tells us the maximum range of brightness that the display can produce. So
Dynamic Range is especially important in imaging and home theater applications,
where, for example, bright/day scenes and dark/night scenes both need to be
rendered accurately. The higher the Dynamic Range the better the display will
be able to reproduce wide differences in scene brightness. Note that a high
Dynamic Range will also yield a dark black-level unless the peak brightness is
very high. Here are the ratios calculated from the peak white and black-level
values measured above:
Dynamic Range Measurements
CRT
Sony PVM-20L5
|
LCD
NEC LCD4000
|
Plasma
NEC 61XM2
|
DLP Rear Projection
Optoma RD-50
|
17,600
|
595
|
505 5% APL
317 25% APL
193 50% APL
126 100% APL
|
1,381
|
The CRT wins by a huge
factor. (We’ve measured Dynamic Range values as high as 36,500 for a CRT using
a sensitive photometer.) The CRT’s enormous lead in Dynamic Range is another
major reason why it remains the technology of choice for home theater
perfectionists. There are four values for the Plasma, depending on the Average
Picture Level of the peak white field. Note that there is only a single value
listed for the LCD because the peak white and black-level values track exactly
with the backlight intensity. For the flat panels, the DLP wins by more than a
factor of 2, and the Plasma trails the LCD by 15% for low APL and by much
larger factors for high APL. Remember that these values were measured in a
completely dark lab. Ambient room lighting will decrease the above values
because the black-levels will be higher.
Note that if you lower Peak Brightness with the Contrast
Control you will also be reducing the Dynamic Range (and the Contrast discussed
below) at the same time because the black-level luminance generally doesn’t
change. This turns into a major advantage for the backlight control found on
many LCDs and the iris aperture control on many projectors because their
Dynamic Range remains constant due to the fact that the black-level luminance
decreases together with the peak luminance. (In many cases reducing an iris
aperture will actually increase the Dynamic Range because spurious light paths
within the projector optics are attenuated, so the black-level luminance
actually decreases faster than the peak luminance.)
Display Contrast
Display Contrast is another highly advertised
specification, but this number flaps in the wind more than any other spec. It’s
supposed to tell you the ratio of the brightest white to the darkest black that
a display can produce within an image. Internal reflections within a display or
display optics cause light from the bright areas of the image to bleed and
contaminate the dark areas so they can’t get as dark as the black-levels listed
above. This means that Display Contrast is always less than Dynamic Range. If
the display’s contrast falls too low, then images will appear washed out (see
below). Remember, unless you see a standard like ANSI next to the Contrast
specification, it’s most likely some form of Dynamic Range.
Contrast Measurements
A standard way to measure Display Contrast is to use a
black and white checkerboard test pattern and measure the luminance at the
center of the white blocks and then the black blocks. The smaller the blocks
the greater the bleed, resulting in lower contrast values. We’ve done this for
a 4x4 checkerboard, which is a standard pattern, and then for a much finer 9x9
checkerboard to see how much more the contrast falls when the blocks are
reduced by an additional factor of 5 in area. Note that this measurement is
tricky because a similar contamination effect (called Veiling Glare)
also affects the measuring instrument. We used heavy black felt masks to eliminate
this common source of error in contrast measurements. All of the displays had
their controls carefully adjusted as described previously. The measurements
were made in a completely dark lab, so there was no contamination from ambient
room lighting.
Display Contrast Measurements
|
CRT
Sony PVM-20L5
|
LCD
NEC LCD4000
|
Plasma
NEC 61XM2
|
DLP Rear Projection
Optoma RD-50
|
4x4 Checkerboard Contrast
|
219
|
586
|
475 5% APL
305 25% APL
188 50% APL
124 High APL
|
332
|
9x9 Checkerboard Contrast
|
75
|
577
|
449 5% APL
294 25% APL
184 50% APL
122 High APL
|
274
|
Plasma Note: the
checkerboard pattern has a 50% APL. Values for the other APLs were calculated
by applying the same
form factors for
the light bleed to the Peak White luminance values. The High APL entry uses the
values for 100% APL.
Comparing the 4x4 checkerboard values with Dynamic Range
above, we see that the CRT value has fallen the most, by a factor of 80 because
of heavy reflections within its thick glass faceplate. (For a larger screen
size the effect would have been somewhat smaller.) The DLP value has fallen by
a factor of 4, primarily due to reflections within the rear projection optics.
The LCD value decreased by only 2% on these scales because the glass is thin
and multiple reflections are heavily absorbed. For similar reasons, the Plasma
value also shows a relatively small 6% decrease from the Dynamic Range values.
Continuing on to the much finer 9x9 checkerboard, we see
a comparatively smaller decrease in spite of the fact that the blocks are a
factor of five smaller in area than in the 4x4 checkerboard. The CRT value has
fallen by an additional factor of 3 (a lot less than the previous factor of
80), the LCD by only 2%, the Plasma by 5%, and the DLP by 17% (again because of
the rear projection optics). It would be tempting to go an additional factor of
five smaller in area, to a 20x20 checkerboard, but the effects of Veiling Glare
make it much harder to perform accurate measurements at smaller scales.
Contrast Interpretation
The term “Contrast” has been twisted in so many ways that
its meaning is no longer clear. First of all, the ubiquitous “Contrast
Control,” which is one of the most prominent controls found on virtually every
display manufactured in the last 50 years actually controls Peak Brightness and
does not affect contrast because it proportionally increases or decreases the
entire gray-scale (by controlling the video gain), so none of the brightness
ratios change (unless the display’s Gamma is not constant, see Part II). So
when people adjust this control they mistakenly believe that the changes they
see on-screen are due to a change in contrast. Another twist is that almost all
manufacturer’s “Contrast” specifications actually refer to the display’s
Dynamic Range rather than anything indicative of the brightness ratios that
will be generated for an image by the display. Checkerboard Display Contrast
certainly falls within the definition of contrast that we have been discussing.
However, as we’ll see below, it generally doesn’t correspond well with the
eye’s own sense of visual contrast.
It’s not surprising to see the checkerboard Display
Contrast continuing to decrease as we move to smaller scales, and taken at face
value you would think that images on a CRT would appear washed out compared
with the flat panels. For the most part, they do not. Of course what really
matters is the eye’s perception of contrast and that seems to differ noticeably
from the checkerboard luminance measurements. The eye is, after all, not a
camera or an instrument, but rather an image processing system that is designed
to extract visual information together with the brain, which supplies the
processing and interpretation.
In particular, the eye doesn’t really pick up on the
large differences in Display Contrast that we’ve measured. Side-by-side, the
checkerboard patterns on all of the displays appear to have roughly the same visual
contrast, even though the instrumentation tells us otherwise. The eye can
detect that there are differences, but they appear to be small differences,
instead of the roughly factor of 3 in the 4x4 checkerboard and factor of 8 in
the 9x9 checkerboard. This has much more to do with human visual perception
than optics. It seems that on these scales the brain interprets that there are
large brightness differences between the adjacent bright and dark checkerboard
blocks, but is less concerned with their precise ratio because there is no
perceptual content involved. There is no question that if the checkerboard contrast
falls too low the eye will at some point take full notice of the effect – it
just didn’t happen with these displays.
It’s an entirely different story for the smaller scales
used in fine text and graphics. For black text on a white background the eye immediately
notices that characters on the CRT show up as light-gray on white instead very
dark-gray on white for the flat panels. So the differences in Display Contrast
are clearly significant in this case. It’s definitely harder to read fine text
on a CRT than on any of the flat panels. The eye takes clear notice of the
differences in Display Contrast here because they affect perceptual content.
The optics in front and rear projectors also has a major
impact on Display Contrast because each element in the light path scatters a
small fraction of the light that reflects off or passes through it, or both.
That’s why the rear projection DLP experienced a significant decrease from the
Dynamic Range value. CRT, LCD and LCoS projectors will experience similar declines.
(Plasma displays are not suited for projection.) Front projectors generally
perform better than rear projection units in this regard because they don’t
need mirrors to fold the light path into a compact enclosure and they use a
front surface reflecting screen rather than a thick transmissive screen that
scatters image light from both its front and rear surfaces. Projection CRTs
also perform better than direct view CRTs because reflections within the
faceplate are better controlled.
From this discussion we see that measuring checkerboard
Display Contrast is tricky and its interpretation is often ambiguous and
misleading, so its usefulness is limited. We need another parameter that
corresponds well with the eye’s own sense of visual contrast. Next we’ll
consider a better and more important measure of contrast: it’s called image
contrast, and as we’ll see it depends on the shape of the gray-scale, and
particularly on the widely misunderstood parameter of Gamma.
What’s Coming Next
In Part II we’ll first
examine the Gray-Scale and Gamma in detail and see how they affect image
contrast and contribute to color hue and saturation errors. Then we’ll measure
the Primary Chromaticities and Color Gamut for each display and discuss how
they affect color accuracy. In Part III we’ll
examine the complex world of display artifacts for each of the display
technologies and in Part
IV we’ll analyze and assess each of the display
technologies in detail and tie together all of the results from Parts I to IV.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Dr. Edward F. Kelley of the NIST, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, for many interesting discussions and for generously sharing his
expertise, and to John P. Pytlak of Eastman Kodak for supplying data on film
density, dynamic range and black-levels. Special thanks to the Konica Minolta
Instrument Systems Division for providing editorial loaner instruments whenever
and wherever they have been needed and for providing the CS-1000
Spectroradiometer on a long-term loan for this project.
About the Author
Dr. Raymond Soneira
is President of DisplayMate Technologies Corporation of Amherst, New Hampshire. He is a research scientist
with a career that spans physics, computer science, and television system
design. Dr. Soneira obtained his Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from Princeton University,
spent 5 years as a Long-Term Member of the world famous Institute for Advanced
Study in Princeton, another 5 years as a Principal Investigator in the Computer
Systems Research Laboratory at AT&T Bell Laboratories, and has also designed,
tested, and installed color television broadcast equipment for the CBS
Television Network Engineering and Development Department. He has authored over
35 research articles in scientific journals in physics and computer science,
including Scientific American. If you have any comments or questions about the
article, you can contact him at dtso@displaymate.com.
Article Links
Series
Overview
Part
I: The Primary Specs
Part
II: Gray-Scale and Color Accuracy
Part
III: Display Artifacts and Image Quality
Part
IV: Display Technology Assessments
Copyright © 1990-2005 by DisplayMate Technologies
Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
This article, or any part
thereof, may not be copied, reproduced, mirrored, distributed or incorporated
into any other work without the prior written permission of DisplayMate
Technologies Corporation