After the past week or so with that other thread you would like that.
1 Like
I am looking at a Sony XR-87A90J currently powered by a PP. I don’t need to blindly trust.
I also saw the same positive result with a Pioneer Kuro Plasma.
I had my yearly eye exam three weeks ago. You’ll be happy to know my prescription hasn’t changed in the past three years.
The photo was taken from a semi-wide angle lens from 2.5 feet away from the tv. The horizontal dimension in the “corner” photos is approximately 28 inches with an approximate vertical dimension of 12 to 16 inches (the size of the screen in the photo may not be perfectly 16:9)
The intention was to not be close enough to see the pixels, just to see smoothness versus noise. And yes, getting a camera to focus on a tv without clearly visible vertical lines is not easy. Photo was taken at night with all other lights off except the tv to try to minimize light interference.
2 Likes
Well unfortunately, the only pictures in focus are the ones without the PS, hence why you can clearly see the pixels.
If the images are blurred, i.e. like the ones with the PS, then any pixel to pixel noise will look smoother due to the optical low pass filter that is occurring. That said, there was enough moire on one of the P12 vs. not P12 pictures, that the angle was much much different.
Only way to do something like this is to have a tripod, fixed setup, and enough zoom to clearly see pixels, and a fast enough shutter to capture a single frame (which also needs frame sync). Anything less won’t capture what is really happening.
Oh, and there is 0 chance this photo was taken with a semi-wide lens from 2.5 feet away. The pixels are very clearly visible throughout the whole image:
1 Like
The “corner” photos are the original images. The “close-up” ones were zoomed in on the photos and a screen capture performed.
The photos were 1/50th of a second, so they captured ever so slightly more than one full frame. Since your initial comment I went back to take closer photos, and seeing the individual pixels up close does not appear to reveal anything good or bad in either direction.
1 Like
Thank you. This is what I would expect.
Video is pretty robust. You can send a flat image and take a photo and analyze for noise, but you have to be careful of rolling shutter on the camera and aspects of refresh on tbe screen.
When taking super-close photos to see the pixels, there is little information to go from.
The interesting question is, when taking a photo from further back, is seeing pixels with the camera actually a good thing or a bad thing?
Is it that seeing more detail is good? Even though that detail is distorted and full of noise?
Or is it bad? And similar to a digital photograph, where ideally one wants to not see the image pixelate as you zoom in?
If you are looking for noise / anomalies you need to get down to the pixel level.
But there is a difference when further back from pixel level.
One is potentially more detailed because of seeing more pixels. One is potentially more detailed by not yet seeing full pixels.
Oh, my goodness. Let’s all take a deep breath.
First off, thanks to adifferentpaul for taking the time and energy to post these photos in the interest of the community. Given the thread here, a brave act indeed.
Secondly, thanks to audiofool69 and audio2analysis for bringing up some valid points about the scientific method.
No, they both are correct that there was little scientific rigor applied.
Let’s relax a little and say that adifferentPaul sees a difference on his video screen and did his best to share with the community what he saw. He’s not a scientist. He’s someone who is doing his level best to share with us what he sees.
None of us should be attacking the others. Come on, guys.
I can share with you a story that might help illustrate the impossible task of changing someone’s mind.
A decade ago when we used to participate in the CEDIA tradeshow (a home theater tradeshow not open to the public), we were trying to show the same differences as Paul. We bought two identical big screen TVs at Best Buy, set them up side by side, used an HDMI splitter to feed them both the identical image. We powered one from the AC power in the booth, the other with a Power Plant. The difference in image was obvious to anyone walking by.
We didn’t announce which was what. We asked which was better, then pointed to the back of the TV so they could see the setup.
Of course, the self-proclaimed experts (you think audiophiles are bad, try changing the mind of a CEDIA-certified video expert) who could not wrap their head around the idea a power supply could make a visible (or audible) difference came by. Of course, they saw the difference. But, it didn’t make sense to them because it didn’t line up with their worldview. It challenged what they believed to be true.
When that happens, we as humans typically turn to one of two main avenues of dismissal. Either the test was not done properly or (and this is more common), it was rigged. I mean, think about it. We all do this regardless of which side of the fence our belief system lies.
Now, a few more open minded folks (open minded means you haven’t yet formed a strong opinion) came by and were fascinated by the display. But, very few video experts had yet to form an opinion. Lots of them assumed it was rigged.
Near the last day, a return contingent of about 6 unhappy video experts came back to the booth demanding that we provide proof. Stymied for a moment because the “proof” was right in front of them, I suggested we simply swap monitors on the fly. Simple. If one was rigged then the good image should follow with the rigged set.
I am sure you know where this is going. I asked one of the experts to make the swap of AC cords so they wouldn’t be suspicious I was pulling a fast one. The better image was clearly visible on the other set. Out of the 6, only one looked like a lightbulb had gone off. The other 5 stood there, arms folded, and said they had been fooled by the quickness of the test and the bias inherent in knowing which would be “expected” to be better. In other words, it wasn’t a blind AB performed by a neutral party.
I share all this simply to point out that the idea of changing someone’s mind about what they believe is nearly impossible. As open minded as we believe each of us to be (me included), the truth is it’s nearly impossible. We’re so imaginative and resourceful when it comes to explaining and defending our worldview that even with hard evidence from people we trust we still don’t switch.
Anyway, I was just in the middle of writing this as a future Paul’s Post and thought the time was propitious to share it here with you.
12 Likes
I have cleaned up the thread a bit, trying to keep those posts of value.
Please keep it civil.
7 Likes
Thanks, Elk.
2 Likes
Perhaps forum rules and etiquette need re posting
for general viewing as well as copies delivered to offending posters.
Continued infractions lead to being banned from forum…
In the past weeks or so it seems this forum has been infiltrated
by some who seek to stir up problems and thus degrade an
otherwise great gathering place to share experiences as well
as seek advice from peers without the constant pointless looping
and useless arguing…
Thanks Elk…
Best wishes
3 Likes
Interesting report of the video comparisons Paul. I too have observed similar instances of “faith” being challenged albeit not video.
In my own case I have used a PPP, a P5, and a P10 with my Sony Bravia TV and also used PS Audio AC-12 power cords with the TV and can see marked improvement in the image. Over the years many who have visited my residences have noted “what a great TV you have!”–remarking on both the image and the sound playback. Well, yes, it’s a good one, but the power plant and the power cord are making improvements they are experiencing. I don’t have to have measurements to prove or disprove the results. I’m just darned glad I discovered these ways to improve sound and vision.
3 Likes
An XR-87A90J huh @vkennedy61 ? (which does not exist)
So audio2analysis you say the Sony XR-87A90J does not
exist?
Well here it is…the one you say does not exist…
Might be good to get your facts before cutting on someone else.
Best wishes
1 Like
Let’s please not bicker over triviality and get back to the main issue.
Thank you!
1 Like
Thanks @davida - It was a typo. It was late and I shouldn’t have been using my phone to write messages. I suppose I’ll have to get an administrative aide to QA my postings.
4 Likes
I’ve been pondering the question I asked regarding image quality, and the one thing that keeps coming back is resolution of digital photographs. As one starts to zoom into a digital photograph, a low resolution image will start to pixelate before a higher resolution image will. It will take more “zooms” into a higher resolution image to start to see some pixelation. So the idea is that images of higher quality will remain smooth longer while images of lower quality will start to pixelate sooner (when zooming in).
According to science, the human eye can start to see pixels as far away as 2.5 feet away from a tv. My observation is that cameras appear to capture some pixels at 2.5’ to 3’ away from the tv.
Myself, and others, have noticed a smoother and cleaner picture quality when the P12 (or other powerplant) is powering their TV’s.
While I did not take these photos in a perfectly 100% fully documented and 100% fully controlled official “test”, the simple act of taking photos from the same position (the area rug has a grid of squares and I stood in the same exact position of the same exact squares, which for me was sufficient enough to document that a difference does indeed exist).
One thing for certain, photos show the images from the tv powered by a P12 are consistently less pixelated and noticably smoother at the 2.5’ to 3’ range than when the TV is powered directly into the wall outlet. This is a definite IMPROVEMENT in picture quality, and can be easily repeated again and again.
4 Likes
How about he takes and posts some measurements with a calibrator? These photos don’t show us anything about how his tv actually looks. There are so many variables at play here with the camera processing, angles, etc. Common sense.