Not exactly. A PWM light control system is not the same as an audio DAC and more importantly the analog amplification and active filtering stages that immediately follow it.
You also overlook the fact that any flat panel TV ever made uses a switch mode power supply. Talk about noise on the DC output! No external power conditioner is going to fix that. The power supply generates far more noise in the video spectrum that you will ever find riding on an AC power source.
I guess what you are asking me is if I ever tried a Power Plant with a digital display? No, I have not tried this exact scenario. But here’s what I have done:
I work in the Hollywood vortex of film and TV production. Today it’s all digital capture and processing. There is no film, no videotape anymore. I have worked for A Kodak company, Technicolor, and now a Panavision owned production facility. I have also consulted for other competing production facilities.All use the Sony 30in X300/310 OLED reference monitor which is fed via SDI, basically SPDIF on steroids for video, 12gbs/6ghz for 4K. We also use various consumer OLED large screen monitors to display a larger image. These of course are calibrated via the service menus to match the Sony X300/310. They are fed via HDMI and we use a conversion box to convert SDI to HDMI - which is a lossless conversion as they are both uncompressed video. These HDMI boxes are just hooked up with a cheap 6 foot HDMI cable. The power of course is conditioned via a double conversion UPS in most cases. But as these large units work a 480volts, standard building distribution transformers step this down to 208/120 three phase. Nothing exotic here.
Do you know what the budgets on some of these popular TV series or feature films are? What about the costs of the color correction systems and the petabytes of high speed storage attached. Like the ability to play out 10 streams of 4K uncompressed video.
At that level of investment don’t you think we would gladly use a $1000 HDMI cable or a PS Audio plant if it made any picture improvements? These are the top facilities world wide that process and prepare this content for distribution. With the engineering horsepower in these facilities, especially with color science, wouldn’t we be all over these proclaimed improvements?
As others have noted, your data does not support your conclusions at all. In fact some of these images, like the first two, imply the PS12 is actually making the image worse! But that’s not possible either. Yes, if properly focused at that distance you should see the pixel grid. Remember flat panel displays, unlike a CRT, are fixed pixels. A consumer 4K panel is always 3840x2160. When displaying 1920x1080, the TV has an internal scaler or upconverter. The physical pixel grid does not change. This goes for your computer monitor as well.
So why is the PS12 picture softer and shows no pixle grid? The pixels are physical elements with a finite size. They do not change even if the TV is off.
This makes no sense! There is an obvious problem with the way these pictures were captured.
It seems to me that they’ve already taken care of any power issues with their conditioned power. We don’t have that luxury at home.
Well Paul is correct when he says a double conversion UPS does not produce the same level of purity as his Power Plants do. And I agree. I have seen the output of these large UPS systems. It looks worse than the utility power. At these levels - 500kva, Pauls topology is not practical. You are going to build a 500kw class B audio amplifier with less than 1% THD? So the sinewave is made by a PWM inverter with some crude LC filtering on the output side. But for digital or data systems, it is more than good enough. And note that large mix rooms and stages run off the same power quality. But aside from the monitoring amplifiers, the program path is digital, in fact it is all file based today.
The sharp black lines at the top of the tv where the screen meets the frame indicate the photo is most certainly in focus. That is what should be used as a reference for figuring out whether the image is in focus or not. The images on the screen do look different. Is it possible that a 1/4" difference in camera placement could make a difference in the outcome? Of course it is possible, but since this has been repeated again and again, it is much more likely that the P12 is what is making the difference. The screen does appear smoother when powered by the P12, which correlates with what I, and others, have observed when using a powerplant.
You don’t seem to understand the technology behind flat panel displays. As many here who do have stated, a fine focused picture of a flat panel display should look like an ugly grid of square pixles. Like a window screen sprayed with water. The pixels are fixed elements. how can they be visible in one image and not the other?
If we were to indulge your AC line noise theory, the PS12 should make the pixel grid sharper and more defined, not softer and mostly invisible.
Also why are the displayed file sizes significantly different between comparisons? That tells me some were compressed more than others. The file size should be identical. What’s up with that?
Just as with the display, the camera image sensor is also a fixed pixel grid. So the raw file size should be that of the image sensor. It does’t matter what the camera is photographing, the pixel still produces data white or black or anything in-between.
Was this a good quality camera locked down on a tripod or a hand held cell phone?
The file size difference is quite simple. The continuous tone photos take up much less space than ones that have different colors in them.
You have to remember, these photos were taken at a wide angle at about 2.5 feet away from the screen.
Right! That’s a compression algorithm. And that asks what artifacts that algorithm is adding to the image. An uncompressed frame is a multiplication of the X, Y pixels and the color bit depth. It makes no difference what the contained data is.A capped lens frame is the exact same size as a fall leaves image. That is until compression is applied.
And since the image from the P12 is smoother and cleaner, more compression is applied, hence the smaller file size.
Give it up. Your test is meaningless. You have no concept of how to do such a test and the controls that are required for accurate results.
You still gloss over the fact that the pixel grid is a physical entity and cannot change size. But your images suggest that is what is happening. What is really happening is inexperienced photography.
What would be the proper test(s)?
A totally dark room. A professional DSLR camera mounted on a tripod and never moved or adjusted once the screen pixel grid is in focus.
Better test would be a photo spectrometer again in a fixed mount to measure the brightness and color hue to extreme precision. Then for sharpness, we would use a line chart and run the images through some programs to calculate the video bandwidth including edge risetimes.
Interesting, I did not expect that a picture with a camera would be helpful.
(I know little of video and watch even less TV so I am genuinely curious.)
If you had read any of the descriptions, you would know that the room was pitch black without any other light of ANY kind to distort the results. When looking through a microscope one cannot see the forest through the trees. The difference is you want the microscope to look at a tree up close, while I’m looking at the forest.
More accurately, one picture is looking at the tree and it’s comparison is looking at the forest. And that’s the problem.
If only @glimmie would obtain a LG OLED, a PP12, and hire a professional calibration technician, all of this theory could be put to bed. Of course they would have to video tape the entire process to avoid a cheating scandal.
I really don’t see any other way to end this debate. I suggest @glimmie since they seem to have the most passion for their position.
I’d be willing to donate the cost of a movie ticket and a bucket of popcorn if a GoFundMe is started.