Log In   |  Register Free Newsletter Subscription
Skip navigation
Zibb
Subscribe to TWICE

Contrast Ratio — Should Manufacturers Agree On A Measurement Standard?

December 10, 2008

TV brand marketers often get a bad rap for trying to fool unsuspecting consumers with bogus specifications touting product superiority. But in the case of contrast ratio specifications, the rap is well deserved.

 

For the last few years now, contrast ratio numbers have been escalating faster than the rate of home loan foreclosures. At one time, 5,000:1 was considered an excellent contrast ratio. Today, if your TV doesn’t surpass 50,000:1 or even 100,000:1, its contrast spec doesn’t even merit mentioning. In fact, this model year one manufacturer has specified 1,000,000:1, a contrast ratio that no doubt would please Dr. Evil. However, will it please today’s average TV buyer?

 

There are basically three problems with contrast ratio specifications today:

  1. They are inconsistent from brand-to-brand.
  2. They are sometimes theoretical (calculated) and not measured values.
  3. They don’t necessarily represent actual display performance.

Since manufacturers have not formally agreed to a standard for contrast ratio measurement, all specifications are generated in a different way. As a result, they cannot be effectively compared from brand-to-brand. In addition, some manufacturers arrive at their contrast ratio spec by calculation rather than measurement. This is done to provide the highest possible theoretical spec which does not take into account practical limits of the manufactured product itself and the variables in the actual measurement process.

 

Then there is the notion that higher contrast ratios denote better display performance. The most common way to measure contrast are full on/off contrast (dynamic contrast) and ANSI contrast (static contrast). Dynamic contrast, the most commonly used method because it yields a higher number than static, is determined by measuring light output with a 100 IRE (or white) signal input and then measuring light output with a 0 IRE (or black) signal input and comparing their values. Static contrast is determined by measuring light output of both black and white with a 16-square checkerboard pattern. Of course, depending on the measurement conditions, dynamic contrast can vary greatly even on the same display. Many factors influence dynamic contrast readings including ambient light, input signal format (full screen white vs. window pattern) and internal display operation (LCD back-light modulation). Additionally, dynamic contrast only expresses a display’s ability to show dark blacks compared to bright whites overall but not within the same scene. Static (ANSI) contrast indicates differences in dark vs. bright within the same scene.

 

A measurement standard for contrast ratio would indisputably resolve the first two problems with contrast ratio specifications today, inconsistency from brand to brand and theoretical vs. measured. Additionally, with careful consideration by CEA manufacturers, a contrast measurement standard, perhaps combining static and dynamic methods, could also provide a specification that effectively represents display performance.

 

Manufacturers have been able to agree on measurement methods for other specifications such as resolution (defined by CEA), power consumption (developed with UL and EPA/EnergyStar) and screen size (per FTC agreement).

 

So why not contrast ratio?

 

Posted by Frank DeMartin on December 10, 2008 | Comments (7)

April 10, 2009
In response to: Contrast Ratio — Should Manufacturers Agree On A Measurement Standard?
Philosoraptor commented:

It was ever thus. I've been in the CE biz for 30 years and, from the perspective of manufacturers trying to buffalo consumers with bogus numbers,nothing has changed. Everyone involved is at fault one way or another


March 4, 2009
In response to: Contrast Ratio — Should Manufacturers Agree On A Measurement Standard?
David commented:

1) OEM LCD manufactures have long established a common test for contrast. It is white+reflection/black+reflection measured in a darkroom. 2) Contrast really points out the level of light leaking or black level of a display (since 500 nits is white and is measureable). 3)Dynamic Contrast is absolutly a made-up, fictious measurement that was created to show that LCDs are as good as plasma in the contrast area. Plasma emit zero/very little light on a black screen so their intrinsic contrast is essentially infinite. LCDs leak light on black so a 2000:1 contrast is mathmatically about as good as it gets. 4) With 4.5% reflection on every technology of displays, real world contrast is diluted to be closer to 50:1 or less. But this looks bad so no one will ever suggest having a "real" test for contrast because the scores are too low to print (plasmas really reflect badly).


December 27, 2008
In response to: Contrast Ratio — Should Manufacturers Agree On A Measurement Standard?
Steve P commented:

I sell TV's and have done so for a very long time. I think that the manufatureres absoutely should agree or be forced to agree on a standard for contrast ratio. You should see the looks of confusion or disbelief the customers give when it is explained to them that contrast ratio is only relevant within a manufacturer and not between manufacturers because this spec has not been standardized. It is also hard to make some new employees understand this as well. All specs ratings should be standardized in the way they are measured and reported to take away the confusion for everyone. And as for Steve's comment about outselling us guys, I would welcome the challenge any day!!!


December 12, 2008
In response to: Contrast Ratio — Should Manufacturers Agree On A Measurement Standard?
STEVE commented:

I HAVE READ MANY REPORTS SAYING 5000:1 IS THE KEY. MORE THAN THAT, YOU CAN'T TELL A DIFFERENCE, LESS THAN THAT YOU CAN. 720p AND 1080p FALL INTO THE SAME CATEGORY. YOU CAN'T TELL A DIFFERENCE UNLESS YOUR FACE IS ONE INCH FROM THE SCREEN ! IT'S ALL MARKTING TO GET MORE MONEY FROM MY CUSTOMERS. I CAN OUTSELL THOSE GOOFY BOX STORES ALL DAY LONG. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO GIVE AWAY THEIR TV'S, BECAUSE IT'S ALL PRICE DRIVEN. THEY DON'T (USUALLY) HAVE SALESPEOPLE WHO CARE, LET ALONE KNOW, WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT !


December 12, 2008
In response to: Contrast Ratio — Should Manufacturers Agree On A Measurement Standard?
Rob Robinson commented:

YES! Let's get real here folks, contrast ratio is by far one of the least understood, overhyped display performance factors. We should have the CEA standards group come up with a consistent, verifiable method of rating contrast ratio and then have the FTC declare it the only way it may be stated (much as they've done with other standards that are in the best interests of consumers). When consumers purchase one TV over another based simply on it having a higher contrast ratio it's akin to buying a car because the tires have a higher air pressure!


December 11, 2008
In response to: Contrast Ratio — Should Manufacturers Agree On A Measurement Standard?
ted ski commented:

It is not only the manufacturers who are to blame. Some big box retailers list dynamic contrast ratios as a primary feature which further confuses the public.


December 11, 2008
In response to: Contrast Ratio — Should Manufacturers Agree On A Measurement Standard?
treaty12 commented:

you forgot to mention the human eye is only scientifically capable of percieving an 800:1 contrast ratio in some cases at night it can reach over 1,000:1 so yeah these manufacturers shouldn't even post contrast as a selling feature. it's all a blatant sales gimmic and if you ask me it's highly unethical.

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
marketing module graphic, twice
Advertisement
TWICE Resource Center
NEWSLETTERS
TWICE eNews Daily
TWICE Retail eWeekly



Please read our Privacy Policy

About Us   |   Advertising Info   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   FREE Subscription   |   Affiliate Links
© 2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Please visit these other Reed Business sites