I saw the new BV7-40 in my local dealer earlier today. Planet Earth on DVD was playing. The staff commented that they could clearly notice a difference in picture quality on the new television compared to the old. However, my own opinion is that it looked no different at all to what I have been watching on my current BV7-40 Mark II, which was supplied to me until the new Mark III arrives in the UK in November. I have to say that I have had all sorts of suprises over the last few weeks since owning this television. Firstly, I am very very impressed with the picture quality of the Mark II BV7-40 which is unbelievable because when I first saw it in dealerships I noticed lots of motion and artifact problems and I really didn't like it at all. Yet, since it has been running Sky Digital (non-HD) in my home I have found the picture to be of a very high standard indeed - and I am extremely fussy. So I can only conclude that as much as we talk about panels and picture processing on this forum, clearly it is down to the quality of signal being broadcast.

As mentioned, for a 2005 Samsung LCD panel this has completely shocked me and I seem to be getting more and more confused with the television industry and what to look for!! Watching Walking with Dinosaurs (and alike programmes) on the Mark II is quite breathtaking I think. Looking at Planet Earth on the new Mark III today I honestly couldn't say that it was any better. So what does all this mean? Well, I don't know really! I guess I am creating a post on first impressions of the Mark III and will post a few more mid to late November when I have been using the Mark III but for the moment, all this hype about the new set is leaving me somewhat disillusioned! Anyway, I have not yet seen it receiving a digital signal so who knows, it may be better than what I already see on the Mark II but that is hard to imagine since watching the right type of programs, the Mark II's performance has literally swept me off my feet. The DVD upscaling is supposed to be excellent and this is something that I have not seen yet either. Using a Planet Earth DVD which is of a very high quality recording is hardly going to challenge the upscaling capabilities. I have had the Mark II for about a month now and it will be swapped over mid November. I suppose this is a testament to how good the Mark II actually is with a high quality digital broadcast. Thats it for the moment then, but watch this space.

Simon.

 

Hrm, they've not bothered to tell me they've got one set up!

As I've mentioned many times, Sky HD on my old MKI panel is still, in my and many other people's opinion, outstanding. Certain programmes on BBC HD are stunning and seem without flaws. Yes, the panel could be brighter and the contrast improved, but the quality is represented well.

I'd be interested in comparing standard Freeview on a MKIII compared to a HD signal on the MKII - as I've said before, the 'quality' of the panel is reflected in the source.

Simon, if the MKII has swept you off your feet, I'd say your expectations can't be exceeded. In all fairness, you might find that you only see a 10% improvement. Do remember though, the MKIII is still probably the best TV available (general opinion), has 4 HDMI sockets, 1080p screen and an upscaling DVD player, 7.1 etc. The MKII has none of these features.

Don't worry Moxxie, we HAVEN'T got it properly set up yet (ie Sky HD connected and running) but we're working on it. Simon threatened to camp out in the store all weekend if we didn't at least run him a DVD. Basically, we've run out of satellite cable feeds in the showroom and there's a bit of jiggery pokery needed to fit in the new BVIS 7 40 now that everything has to be showing HD. Monday, hopefully! Meanwhile, we've (by which I mean Simon) has been watching Planet Earth in the full glare of the shop window (and a sunny day at that) so I'm rather hopeful that we'll be doing it proper justice in its final demo position which is where the BeoVision 9 is now. Anyway, I've rather lost the will to live now that the rugby is over. Congratulations to all you South Africans out there!

I thought there was a difference. Edges seemed better defined, but with less ghosting, but I couldn't really judge much else because of where it was positioned.

Connection wise, it's a bit of a step ahead of the old one. More connections than the Italian mafia, but it looks like they've really thought about where each socket goes. No differences in terms of design as far as I could tell (a good thing IMO). Other than that, I couldn't really judge it.

NickinBath:

...in its final demo position which is where the BeoVision 9 is now.

Sounds like a good plan. Look forward to seeing this Monday or Tuesday!

Chris.

 

Perhaps Simon, the benefits may be found in the addition of  the Beosystem 3.  My BV 7 Mrk III (two days old) is here and I have only seen one movie, The Red Violin.  I started with that movie because the music is lovely and wanted to hear the BL 9s (front speakers).  I may catch another movie tonight.   

moxxey:

Hrm, they've not bothered to tell me they've got one set up!

As I've mentioned many times, Sky HD on my old MKI panel is still, in my and many other people's opinion, outstanding. Certain programmes on BBC HD are stunning and seem without flaws. Yes, the panel could be brighter and the contrast improved, but the quality is represented well.

I'd be interested in comparing standard Freeview on a MKIII compared to a HD signal on the MKII - as I've said before, the 'quality' of the panel is reflected in the source.

Simon, if the MKII has swept you off your feet, I'd say your expectations can't be exceeded. In all fairness, you might find that you only see a 10% improvement. Do remember though, the MKIII is still probably the best TV available (general opinion), has 4 HDMI sockets, 1080p screen and an upscaling DVD player, 7.1 etc. The MKII has none of these features.

To be fair they have been extremely busy over the last few days. Particularly yesterday, so they haven't really had a chance to get it set up properly as Nick's post suggests. I am commenting only on what I saw today and in my mind there was no notable difference. Planet Earth is the same quality 'film type' as Walking with Dinosaurs/Beasts so it was an easy and more than apt comparison for me to make. I am not sure what I was expecting the new TV to do really. I mean, apart from looking more sharper, what else 'could' a modern day TV actually do?

This is where I find HD unconvincing (so far) because I can't see how the same program broadcast in HD could be any more realistic. After today, I have decided not to subscribe £10 a month to the Sky HD service because I really don't feel HD is all it is cracked up to be. The BV7-40 Mark II has confirmed this to me 100% when you play a high quality signal/broadcast through it. In fact, looking at HD channels today did not actually seem any better to me than the Walking with Dinosaurs/Beasts footage, perhaps very very marginally but only if you had a keen eye and were really looking for it. My opinion is based purely on what I have seen and nothing else.

Perhaps I have built up in my mind some incredibly amazing picture to expect from the new BeoVision's but in fact, the reality is that such picture's don't actually exist. I have been relaxing tonight with a glass of wine watching the discovery channels, which I love, and the quality of the picture has really struck me as being very realistic and true to life, even more so I think than my mother's Avant - a bold statement I know as many of you contest that the Avant CRT technology offers the best TV picture ever. I am not of the same opinion.

As regards to camping the weekend in the shop, well I wouldn't go quite that far, but it is good to keep one on their toes. Have a good weekend all. Until Monday morning then.

Simon.

Believe me, Simon, the same TV programme through standard Freeview/Sky doesn't compare to the HD equivalent. I don't really watch 'Robin Hood', but it was on Saturday evening and I compared the standard Sky broadcast with the HD version. HD version was superior, colours sharper and less artefacts (and you can only see the artefacts on the regular channel when you compared it to the HD version).

I'm confused by your posts. You said that you're really fussy about your picture, but then say you can't see how HD offers any advantages. I'd say that you'd see *more* of a difference moving from regular Sky to Sky HD through your current MKII than you would moving from regular Sky on your MKII to MKIII.
 

The Beonic Man:

moxxey:

Hrm, they've not bothered to tell me they've got one set up!

As I've mentioned many times, Sky HD on my old MKI panel is still, in my and many other people's opinion, outstanding. Certain programmes on BBC HD are stunning and seem without flaws. Yes, the panel could be brighter and the contrast improved, but the quality is represented well.

I'd be interested in comparing standard Freeview on a MKIII compared to a HD signal on the MKII - as I've said before, the 'quality' of the panel is reflected in the source.

Simon, if the MKII has swept you off your feet, I'd say your expectations can't be exceeded. In all fairness, you might find that you only see a 10% improvement. Do remember though, the MKIII is still probably the best TV available (general opinion), has 4 HDMI sockets, 1080p screen and an upscaling DVD player, 7.1 etc. The MKII has none of these features.

To be fair they have been extremely busy over the last few days. Particularly yesterday, so they haven't really had a chance to get it set up properly as Nick's post suggests. I am commenting only on what I saw today and in my mind there was no notable difference. Planet Earth is the same quality 'film type' as Walking with Dinosaurs/Beasts so it was an easy and more than apt comparison for me to make. I am not sure what I was expecting the new TV to do really. I mean, apart from looking more sharper, what else 'could' a modern day TV actually do?

This is where I find HD unconvincing (so far) because I can't see how the same program broadcast in HD could be any more realistic. After today, I have decided not to subscribe £10 a month to the Sky HD service because I really don't feel HD is all it is cracked up to be. The BV7-40 Mark II has confirmed this to me 100% when you play a high quality signal/broadcast through it. In fact, looking at HD channels today did not actually seem any better to me than the Walking with Dinosaurs/Beasts footage, perhaps very very marginally but only if you had a keen eye and were really looking for it. My opinion is based purely on what I have seen and nothing else.

Perhaps I have built up in my mind some incredibly amazing picture to expect from the new BeoVision's but in fact, the reality is that such picture's don't actually exist. I have been relaxing tonight with a glass of wine watching the discovery channels, which I love, and the quality of the picture has really struck me as being very realistic and true to life, even more so I think than my mother's Avant - a bold statement I know as many of you contest that the Avant CRT technology offers the best TV picture ever. I am not of the same opinion.

As regards to camping the weekend in the shop, well I wouldn't go quite that far, but it is good to keep one on their toes. Have a good weekend all. Until Monday morning then.

Simon.

 A number of issues here!

Firstly, when it comes to HD it depends on the rate at which its transmitted and some HD quality is rather poor. In tests conducted by the BBC the conclusion was good quality SD is better than bad HD! I would not pay for SKY HD for sure! one can alwys pick examples of where HD looked good for one particular film but its just not worth he money.

All flat panel TV need  high quality signals to perform in a satisfactory way , especially LCD- the picture falls apart.

There is no doubt that the MK111 is better but its all about a measure of increase and the TV cannot overcome the basic problems that LCD has and given that B&O are not using the very latest screen- I rather suspect the new geenration panels next year will provide the sort of improvment BS3 makes now- if not more. Its all about the panel!

Whatever hype one reads about how wonderful it is- one needs to know how that technology works- understand its pitfalls- and realise that B&O are not capable of creating the impossible!

I posted earlier about the new pioneer kuros plasma- it boasts the best picture of all time for a a plasma- and indeed its very good.

In a test i was able to compare the previous generation and the latest generation pioneer panel- with the SAME source, yes there was a difference, black was slighly blacker( how black is black) the movement was a little better but unless your looking for it not a HUGE difference EXCEPT the price!

previous generation was £2100 cheaper than the latest! I would take the earlier panel anyday for that saving!

Reality is the consumer electronics business is developing an increasing number of products that the consumer sfind it difficult ttruly appreciate or justifty and are being asked to pay higher prices for very small incremental advances.

The Beonic Man:

So I can only conclude that as much as we talk about panels and picture processing on this forum, clearly it is down to the quality of signal being broadcast.

Absolutely - the signal quality and strength is crucial. I recently had an installer from my cable company come by as I wasn't satisfied with the image I got in my media room. He measured output, changed the configuration of the distributor where the signal enters the house -- checked all the wall connectors (and found that one along the relay leading to my media room had been reversed, seriously degrading signal strength).

He also replaced a stretch of coax which he suspected might have been damaged. And he installed a signal booster at the entry point.

Result - a serious increase in quality not just in the image but in the sound resolution. Previously I hadn't enjoyed listening to the music/radio transmitted by the operator, it was grainy sounding. Now I have a much more pleasant resolution of the sound.

The significant improvement was in the image - there's simply more of it, no jitters, crawling in dark portions or burnt out whites. It wasn't a major problem, but with a 50" screen anything will be magnified, particularly with SD. Now I'm a happy camper - and looking forward to the new HD service the operator is launching in November. (For the projector).

The installer measured signal strength in the media room pre and post work. According to his meter, I got a ten-fold boost in signal strength both for sound and image, ensuring much greater stability and much less work for the image correction algorithms in my setup.

Having one of the world's best image processors or full HDMI arrays doesn't really do much if the signal is sub-par, and my experience definitely demonstrates that. I'd recommend having the cable installer come by to anyone before plunking down a lot of money on hardware!

In my installer's own words: "I don't know, I think that the signal you had before was RGB-level at best, and unstable at that. Now you have a proper digital feed." 

 

===

 

355f is absolutely right when it comes to signal strength and marginal differences. Low signal strength, and you won't see your flatscreen come alive. HD transmission will have serious bandwidth challenges (there isn't enough bandwidth) which means that they'll degrade the signal as much as they can get away with -- leaving you poorer for the result. If you have an in-house source (game console, HD player, computer) then you control the signal.

Transmitting high resolution audio takes less bandwidth than the video - and I don't think they'll compromise there. Which means you'll get a lot more out of investing in proper sound processing and excellent speakers, rather than hunting for marginal improvement with the display. Our eyes simply can't distinguish the difference. I bought the Kuro 720p display, and must confess that I can't see the "significant" improvement between that and the 1080p which is quite a bit more expensive. But I'm very pleased with the 720p Kuro, particularly after the signal upgrade!
 

Some really interesting replies since my own last post and I'd like to pick up on several.

Moxxey, you mentioned that you are confused by some of my posts. Well you are right, and this is what I have been saying. I am finding myself getting more confused by televison technology the more I look into it and carry out research. I had always assumed that HD broadcasts were superior because we are told this, be it by retailers, Sky or other sources. But I am a person who is never satisfied with what I am told. I forumlate my own opinons and want to feel entirely convinced that they are correct. I think that 355f's comment, "Firstly, when it comes to HD it depends on the rate at which its transmitted and some HD quality is rather poor. In tests conducted by the BBC the conclusion was good quality SD is better than bad HD! I would not pay for SKY HD for sure! One can always pick examples of where HD looked good for one particular film but its just not worth the money..." sums up exactly what I was trying to say.

Many times when I have looked at an HD broadcast I have felt it is crystal clear and very realistic compared to other non-HD footage I have watched. However, I have also spent a considerable amount of time looking at the 11 HD channels currently offered by Sky which include Sky 1, Sky Sports and Sky Discovery. When looking at these channels, I haven't seen that same clarity and realism all of the time - only occasionally and, as previously mentioned, it looks no different to the normal broadcast of the same footage on the digital channels i.e. Sky Discovery footage looks identical to Sky Discovery HD footage! This, I believe, is because both pieces of footage are recorded on high quality recording equipment so you get an excellent picture either way. What I would say for certain is that a digital broadcast is often better than an SD broadcast. So, with all this in mind, I believe that the industry is trying to make money out of HD by fooling people into believing its the next 'generational step' in tv broadcasting when in fact it isn't at all!

355f and soundproof go on to make some excellent points that pick up on all this further.

An HD broadcast on a Mark I BeoVison 7-32/40 is almost certainly going to look superior than viewing non-HD on the same tv. But, the Mark II and Mark III BeoVisions look so good anyway when playing the right digital footage, you begin to question if HD on these sets is honestly worth it, and in my mind it isn't, not at the moment anyway. I don't know what the future holds. I hope I have better explained my thoughts about this.

Simon.

I understood the perceived wisdom to be  that the benefit of full HD(1080p) on a panel under 50" would be difficult to notice especially as one moved away from the screen to a "normal" viewing distance.

Perhaps B & O has given in to the apparent market demand for full HD TVs with the BV7 MK111,rather than release an updated,Beosystem 3 equipped, model with a lower resolution panel.

 

 

Apologies for entering the discussion being owner of neither set compared, but I think The Beonic Man is - rightly - pointing at some generally interesting things … 

Though there is no doubt about HD superiority, I have no doubt either that I would easily 'convince' many, where I live, that my 2004 non-HD BV5 is a HD-set: all I need and occasionally get from one of my digital (SD) STBs  - the one not from where I live, is a really good quality material from the broadcaster, but 355f and soundproof explained this etc. very well. Actually, as I see it on my good old set, you can easily tell the difference between the qualities of cameras used during making a particular program...

Bottom line: happy are the people living where the only choice of the day is between HD broadcasting and … well, HD broadcasting. They don’t need to bother about all these comparisons and can actually fully enjoy what’s being broadcast … I really mean it!

The Beonic Man:

than viewing non-HD on the same tv. But, the Mark II and Mark III BeoVisions look so good anyway when playing the right digital footage, you begin to question if HD on these sets is honestly worth it..

Perhaps Simon, but HD at £120/year is almost not worth worrying about, when we're discussing £8800 BV7-40's. I could say the same thing about Blu-ray DVDs. Yes there's an improvement, but they are also generally twice the price. So, depends if you're seeking the best possible experience, which you've suggest that's your primary goal. If it wasn't....you'd have bought the BV5 HD as you prefer the design.

moxxey:

The Beonic Man:

than viewing non-HD on the same tv. But, the Mark II and Mark III BeoVisions look so good anyway when playing the right digital footage, you begin to question if HD on these sets is honestly worth it..

Perhaps Simon, but HD at £120/year is almost not worth worrying about, when we're discussing £8800 BV7-40's. I could say the same thing about Blu-ray DVDs. Yes there's an improvement, but they are also generally twice the price. So, depends if you're seeking the best possible experience, which you've suggest that's your primary goal. If it wasn't....you'd have bought the BV5 HD as you prefer the design.

You are right Chris but its the principle of the matter for me.

No 355f !!  Its all about the back-lightening on a LCD. ;)

 50% of the PQ is the back-lightening,  20% is the video engine/processor and 30% is the panel if you didn't now that....                                                                                          

 

Regards

Beolab... can you really notice a SIGNIFICANT difference between the Mark II and the Mark III? If you can, where - standard broadcast, digital broadcast, high definition or DVD upscaling? I really couldn't see any difference with a Planet Earth DVD, which was normal digital footage (non-HD) playing on DVD.

Simon.

The Beonic Man:

Beolab... can you really notice a SIGNIFICANT difference between the Mark II and the Mark III? If you can, where - standard broadcast, digital broadcast, high definition or DVD upscaling? I really couldn't see any difference with a Planet Earth DVD, which was normal digital footage (non-HD) playing on DVD.

Simon.

I have them both so i can tell the difference ;) Hm i don´t now were to start, but i can´t relay see any big difference viewing standard broadcast because the signal  are way to bad for 40".. ( I can see that it is a little bit more contrast and slightly brighter i think on standard analogue broadcastings but no big difference)

On HD you can see big difference! Less artefact's and true realism in the pictures because of BS3, High Glare and more and more..

The tone in the picture are not "blueish" like the MK II and you can watch a football game without motion artefact's at all.. Higher detail overall in the picture. "The picture have a better flow"..

Then on upscaled DVD playback the picture are little brighter and have more detail and less artefact's...

So the MK III are about 10-15% better i think....  

 

Regards

 

 

Thanks Beolab, that sounds about right to me, a 10%-15% difference or so.

Beolab:

No 355f !!  Its all about the back-lightening on a LCD. ;)

 50% of the PQ is the back-lightening,  20% is the video engine/processor and 30% is the panel if you didn't now that....                                                                                          

 

Regards

Since when has one heard of the panel being seperated from the backlight!-its one and the same thing, It is classed as a unit. So when for example an LCD panel is sold obviously it includes the backlight which is part of panel development- without which of course there would be no picture.

One tries to balance out some of the euphoria over the BV7 that is generated on some posts, which give the impression maybe that B&O have found the 'holy grail' in LCD manufacture and development. Manufacturers of course love this ethos of course- without which one cant generate new sales- so this is great for B&O lets hope many take the same view.

Its reassuring that now there seems to be agreement it is maybe 10% better than the older outdated version and that is about right I think.

 

Your post seem to allude that I dont know much about it, and having run an electronics busienss in China for the past nine years, with the last four in a joint venture with an LCD company- im sure your right!!

355f:

Your post seem to allude that I dont know much about it, and having run an electronics busienss in China for the past nine years, with the last four in a joint venture with an LCD company- im sure your right!!

Pesky language difficulties there in China, 355f? Takes a while to really get into the deep tech stuff, I guess.

Yes, would be a little hard to separate the quality of the backlight from the panel itself ... Actually shown quite nicely in the "difference between LCD and Plasma" video someone posted here. It showed how all the rear filters and light source (looked like neon tubes to me) are integrated with the panel.
That also being the problem with LCD, as I understand it, as they're never really OFF, those backlights? Leading to LCDs having a hard time achieving BLACK.

At any rate, your insights into the industry are appreciated, 355f. 

 

355f:

Beolab:

No 355f !!  Its all about the back-lightening on a LCD. ;)

 50% of the PQ is the back-lightening,  20% is the video engine/processor and 30% is the panel if you didn't now that....                                                                                          

 

Regards

Since when has one heard of the panel being seperated from the backlight!-its one and the same thing, It is classed as a unit. So when for example an LCD panel is sold obviously it includes the backlight which is part of panel development- without which of course there would be no picture.

One tries to balance out some of the euphoria over the BV7 that is generated on some posts, which give the impression maybe that B&O have found the 'holy grail' in LCD manufacture and development. Manufacturers of course love this ethos of course- without which one cant generate new sales- so this is great for B&O lets hope many take the same view.

Its reassuring that now there seems to be agreement it is maybe 10% better than the older outdated version and that is about right I think.

 

Your post seem to allude that I dont know much about it, and having run an electronics busienss in China for the past nine years, with the last four in a joint venture with an LCD company- im sure your right!!

You say the panel  couldent be separated from the back light????? No problem at all!!  355f you are too much a "sales man" in you writings i think... You now what you have heard about the LCD/Plasma technologi... Come up with some evidence instead and prov me wrong!

Here read and watch this...

http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/post/55848.aspx 

 

Regards

Beolab:

355f:

Beolab:

No 355f !!  Its all about the back-lightening on a LCD. ;)

 50% of the PQ is the back-lightening,  20% is the video engine/processor and 30% is the panel if you didn't now that....                                                                                          

 

Regards

Since when has one heard of the panel being seperated from the backlight!-its one and the same thing, It is classed as a unit. So when for example an LCD panel is sold obviously it includes the backlight which is part of panel development- without which of course there would be no picture.

One tries to balance out some of the euphoria over the BV7 that is generated on some posts, which give the impression maybe that B&O have found the 'holy grail' in LCD manufacture and development. Manufacturers of course love this ethos of course- without which one cant generate new sales- so this is great for B&O lets hope many take the same view.

Its reassuring that now there seems to be agreement it is maybe 10% better than the older outdated version and that is about right I think.

 

Your post seem to allude that I dont know much about it, and having run an electronics busienss in China for the past nine years, with the last four in a joint venture with an LCD company- im sure your right!!

You say the panel  couldent be separated from the back light????? No problem at all!!  355f you are too much a "sales man" in you writings i think... You now what you have heard about the LCD/Plasma technologi... Come up with some evidence instead and prov me wrong!

Here read and watch this...

http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/post/55848.aspx 

 

Regards

Clearly, we are having some translation problems here! The backlight is PART of the LCD assembly. When B&O  or any customer buy the panel from Samsung they dont buy it without a backlight!!  we supply panels to many brands and I can assure you they all work like this!  How can I prove this point!!! One thing that will surpirse most I think is the FOB cost of a 40 in panel- its sub $120.

LCD is a very cheap manufacturing process and I will be more than happy to mail you off line and invite you to see it made if you so desire!

355f:

Beolab:

355f:

Beolab:

No 355f !!  Its all about the back-lightening on a LCD. ;)

 50% of the PQ is the back-lightening,  20% is the video engine/processor and 30% is the panel if you didn't now that....                                                                                          

 

Regards

Since when has one heard of the panel being seperated from the backlight!-its one and the same thing, It is classed as a unit. So when for example an LCD panel is sold obviously it includes the backlight which is part of panel development- without which of course there would be no picture.

One tries to balance out some of the euphoria over the BV7 that is generated on some posts, which give the impression maybe that B&O have found the 'holy grail' in LCD manufacture and development. Manufacturers of course love this ethos of course- without which one cant generate new sales- so this is great for B&O lets hope many take the same view.

Its reassuring that now there seems to be agreement it is maybe 10% better than the older outdated version and that is about right I think.

 

Your post seem to allude that I dont know much about it, and having run an electronics busienss in China for the past nine years, with the last four in a joint venture with an LCD company- im sure your right!!

You say the panel  couldent be separated from the back light????? No problem at all!!  355f you are too much a "sales man" in you writings i think... You now what you have heard about the LCD/Plasma technologi... Come up with some evidence instead and prov me wrong!

Here read and watch this...

http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/post/55848.aspx 

 

Regards

Clearly, we are having some translation problems here! The backlight is PART of the LCD assembly. When B&O  or any customer buy the panel from Samsung they don't buy it without a backlight!!  we supply panels to many brands and I can assure you they all work like this!  How can I prove this point!!! One thing that will surprise most I think is the FOB cost of a 40 in panel- its sub $120.

LCD is a very cheap manufacturing process and I will be more than happy to mail you off line and invite you to see it made if you so desire!

I now what you mean 355f, but it is the baklight that is the most important in a LCD. Second comes the panel or "the two plastic bricks with liquid Cristal between them" =). Look at the movie in my tread and you can clearly see the "dark plastic LCD  panel" and the backlight separated from each other... But i'm aware of  that B&O buy the hole panel with CCFL backlight... So the biggest issue for a LCD screen today is the backlight (The CCFL UV lamp)... But in 2008 as you mentioned Samsung and JVC are about to launch LED backlight LCD screens instead of CCFL lamps. =  The Contrast will increase by 10 times against the best LCD screens today... 

Regards Fredrik L