Dynamic Contrast (DC)
A notable recent development in the LCD technology is "dynamic contrast" (DC), also called "advanced contrast ratio" (ACR) and various other designations. When there is a need to display a dark image, a display that supports dynamic contrast underpowers the backlight lamp (or decreases the aperture of the projector's lens using an iris), but proportionately amplifies the transmission through the LCD panel; this gives the benefit of realizing the potential static contrast ratio of the LCD panel in dark scenes when the image is watched in a dark room. The drawback is that if a dark scene contains small areas of superbright light, the resulting image may be over exposed.
The trick for the display is to determine how much of the highlights may be unnoticeably blown out in a given image under the given ambient lighting conditions.
Brightness, as it is most often used in marketing literature, refers to the emitted luminous intensity on screen, measured in candela per square metre (cd/m2). The higher the number, the brighter the screen.
It is also common to market only the dynamic contrast ratio capability of a display (when it is better than its static contrast ratio only on paper), which should not be directly compared to the static contrast ratio. A plasma display with a 2,000,000:1 static contrast ratio will show superior contrast to an LCD (with LED or CCFL backlight) with 30,000,000:1 dynamic and 10,000:1 static contrast ratio when the input signal contains a full range of brightnesses from 0 to 100% simultaneously. They will, however, be on-par when input signal ranges only from 0 to 20% brightness.
Read more about this topic: Contrast Ratio
Famous quotes containing the words dynamic and/or contrast:
“Knowledge about life is one thing; effective occupation of a place in life, with its dynamic currents passing through your being, is another.”
—William James (1842–1910)
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)