|
Laser TV billed as death of plasma
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 11 October, 2006
Australian firm Arasor International and its US partner Novalux have unveiled what they see as the next revolution in visual technology - the world's first laser television which is poised to be half the price, twice as good, and consume a fraction of the electricity of conventional plasma and LCD TVs.
Manufacturing firm Arasor produces a special chip, the unique optoelectronic chip which ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
15. October 2006 @ 12:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
the next step would be SED or at the least a format that has the size of plasma,lazer,LCD but the clearlity and ressulion of CRT *yawns*
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Newbie
|
15. October 2006 @ 12:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
sorry for my ignorance..but what does SED stand for?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
15. October 2006 @ 12:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Newbie
|
15. October 2006 @ 12:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL N/M I guess I should read the whole forum...I got it now.
|
Junior Member
|
15. October 2006 @ 21:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
About 7 years ago, I went to work for an Audio Visual company. Plasma was just coming out. Far too expensive for the most sophisticated Board Room and only for rich folks. The "real" primary market was directed to "Point of Sale" kiosh monitors for buildings. The industry wanted to put them in every airport and into every hotel and shopping mall. This is where they quickly learned about burn in. They even put in special features on some units that "shut down" OR went to safe mode after so many minutes of a static picture. The colors would reverse to prevent burn in. It would stay that way until "awakened" with new data.
Never really worked, and walking through some areas looking at negative images, was like a scene in some of those spooky new age Sci Fi movies.
Most people did not know that the glass screen on plasma limited the size because of production problems. The breakage percentage of just getting the things to market was very high. You cannot ship a plasma on its flat side. The center weight will flex and break the honey comb screen.
Technology was refining the LCD. At first there were too many coming off the lines with dead pixels. For several years, the cost of producing any thing larger than 15 inches was way too high. PC mag now says that the LCD will dominate the PC market with 15" screens and above and the CRT is on the way out.
Like most, I still have a projection 52" TV. Never have been able to keep the RBG aligned.
I would like to pose a question to the forum.
I have RR cable TV. At first I got good or fair reception. Then I started to get very poor reception. I had the cable company come out several times, and they said it was nothing wrong. I get extremely sharp images when I use the DVD, and even old tapes.
Every time they come out, they try to push me to the new "digital" signal. They say it is analog now.
Then they say my set is already set up for HD, and I need to buy the HD package. I can't see spending the extra 10 bucks for the digital. Seriously, I think they have deliberately lowered the signal quality to force you in to purchasing the digital, which we should already have in the TV package.
Comments?
Meanwhile, I will start saving my money for the new laser tv. By that time the $600 bulb in my projection TV will dim or blow and it will be time to move on.
Tejas
|
|
mitch999
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. October 2006 @ 01:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
i have a plasma tv and the picture is very good with dvd or digital hd signals but not so good with standard signals, it has trouble showing black levels but not noticable on most shows, they are still developing leps a british invention that has all the advantages of plasma with the contrast of crt, i think samsung has a working 42" model available.
|
|
tnarulz
Junior Member
|
16. October 2006 @ 01:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Personally I can't wait for the laser tv to come out because even if it's more than advertised it's still going to force prices down on the stuff that's already been coming down. :)
Spellcheck is a nice invention.
Using BitVomit hurts the swarm your in, get a decent client.
|
|
n3wbi3
Newbie
|
16. October 2006 @ 03:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
What about Helio?? Somewhat like a holograph a bit expensive $20,000, but you can manipulate the image by sticking your finger in the stream and moving it around. Check it out on youtube just type Helio for your search...
|
Senior Member
|
16. October 2006 @ 10:48 |
Link to this message
|
Honestly, I was never a huge fan of plasma or projection... Burn in was always a problem(With one or two very expensive exceptions).
I am interested to see if laser tv gets around that. Although the trick here honestly isn't that they need a better product than plasma, it's trying to *match* the product for a cheaper price, and if companies stick to that, it should be very achievable. Plasma is honestly an impractical technology; and while there are some VERY nice plasma televisions available, I'm just shocked they made it this far.
As for someone's mention of video games having no burn in problems anymore; I'm not sure if they got a simple response, so here's an easy one: When you're running through the trenches of killzone, do you not see your health, selected weapon, ammo, and stamina in the corners the entire time? When you're racing online in Forza Motorsport or Gran Turismo, do you not see your odometer constantly, as well as your position, etc? This is all it takes to burn in portions of your screen. It's more likely on projection televisions than plasma, but is still a reality on plasma.
I'm not going to pretend this is for everybody, because it's not. But I personally use a Sony CRT HDTV, because CRT is so unlikely to get burn in, and still has great color range. But I have the space, and got a steal on it.
Anyways, I do look forward to seeing how this affects the market. I don't know how much capacity plasma really has to go down in price, because it's not a simple product to manufacture, so it may phase out. And for those who are thinking that the technology of plasma is invincible as number one, let's recall, it's not really been here all that long, compared to other image technologies, it's still a baby...
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. October 2006 @ 10:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
handsom
thats what I wanted to know tis the stable images that are constant that burn in,so Ok I get it *L*
Is there not a way to build the that dont burn in?
Or a way to reset/flash the screen?
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. October 2006 @ 10:58
|
|
snige
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. October 2006 @ 15:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
to ZIppy,
Thers's nothing you can do realy apart from ( in the UK at least ) get rid the the crappy " RED BUTTON " logos.
I heard that some companies ( Sony for one ) hift the image 1 pixel every few minutes. Seeing as until recently Samsung made the screens for Sony they might do the same.
but basically if it were possible to stop it, it would have been done by now.
Oh and to tejasmed,
That's why Pioneer's ( and others )use plastic screens now.
As for Laser TV , well Pioneer boast there TV's have got billions of colours( It's thought the eye can see about 10 miilion in one image) . Now it might not be able to display that many in one frame, but to show 90%? For that you need a source that is capable of showing that. Note that, at single layer at least, both BR ( 25 gig at mpeg 2, less compression than HDDVD ) and 15 gig ( mpeg 4, more compression but very effcient )a film takes up most of that.
So to show 90% continuously will neeed HUGE amount of data.
But if it works as they say ( does anything actually do that nowadays ) ? Then fair play and my name is on the list. But for now my LCD is fine, and look forward to SED.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. October 2006 @ 16:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
snige
Come on do you really think they would put soemthign into them to fix the burn in if it was 20-50% of the price?
Plus they can sell more even if its at a discount,I know I am being overly asinine over saying that *L*
Wait I thought both BR and HD use MP2 and MP4?
|
|
xpaphil
Newbie
|
16. October 2006 @ 18:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
We can enjoy what we can get today or wait for better. Of course we may die before we decide. I prefer to enjoy today and maybe upgrade tomorrow. No point in arguing. It doesn't get us anywhere.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. October 2006 @ 18:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
xpaphil
Since I will never have a GF I have to argue wif someone 0-o
|
Newbie
|
20. October 2006 @ 03:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
According to toshiba,
There is no known product.on the market
They have a screen that rivels plasma & lcd , the dying breed, apparently.. what is it with wrap,s ,roll away.
|
|
hughjars
Suspended permanently
|
20. October 2006 @ 04:39 |
Link to this message
|
SED (and OLED for that matter) look very interesting but I expect it'll not be around and being pushed until the Olympics in 2008 (and even then the early talk of cheaper prices will be offset by the move to even larger average screen sizes than the current LCD/Plasma - 50" is planned IIRC - to maintain high margins and milk the usual early adopting crew.).
Also one must remember SED is a fixed resolution system like LCD or Plasma, meaning although a lovely 1080p (currently native res of SED) signal will look as good as the best CRT's, anything below that like 480p or i (or 720p?) will look much worst than an SD or HD CRT (and no matter how much we choose to ignore it we'll all be watching a lot of SD TV for quite some time yet).
SED cannot be made multi-sync either due to its display having thousands of mini firing guns.
It's very interesting and very impressive but it isn't the answer necessarily to all of our needs.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. October 2006 @ 04:40
|
Newbie
|
23. October 2006 @ 02:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
For all its worth , whitch is the best or worst in high definetion and reception in all that is availabe too all ,all over the world,
Be it lcd or plasma ,Overhead & or rear projection. Where you all have point off, enough is enough.
How bad is your vision that you forgot(mentally or memories)
What is good enough in vision , view too accept that we will never be up to date with teckno tripping into the next genaration of/.
What the fu@k is next . < that is not swearing,, it is a understanding.
g.w.i
|
|
hughjars
Suspended permanently
|
23. October 2006 @ 05:25 |
Link to this message
|
Owitis it's true tech will always change (if not necessarily improve).
But the big advances in resolution are almost over.
We're at the point of 'transparency' with 35mm movie film now in many instances and 70mm film (IMax) is not such a leap.
The means of it's presentation (type and screen size) and the audio accompanying it (HD 22.2 sound?) may change
but for watching movies we're very very close to a true cinema standard in your home.
I posted this on another thread, you might like a look, it might interest you -
For 35mm film we are, at 1080p, in most instances, at the point of 'transparency' with the master.
You can't just keep upping resolution and expecting better results cos after a certain point (which we are very close to now) you just end up with the grains breaking up and 'noise'.
I've nicked this from elsewhere, I hope it helps -
It's all to do with scanning the movies and grain sizes.
2k Telecine is common (the other 'standard is 4k, usually for VFX too) apparantly grains tend to break up much above 2k.
see this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine
2k is used for 1080p = transparent as many movies are processed at 2k.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
This is an interesting page that compares the scan quality of various resolutions. It's actually for comparing digital cameras to film frame detail, but it's very interesting, and seems to suggest 4000dpi is commonly used, while 8000dpi is approaching the diffraction limit (ie where no more detail is possible to capture - only noise).
That said, he states he is using Velvia film, which is a film with one of the lowest amounts of grain possible, so the figures he gives are definitely upper limits.
In other words, 2000dpi would probably be more than sufficient for normal film and scanning at lower resolutions, such as 720p or 1080p.
Even if another even larger HD format arrives, there wouldn't really be any point transferring 35mm movies to anything larger than 1080p.
They would have to start filming on 70mm (imax) to go any higher.
Even at 1080p you'll see lots of grain and resolution breaking up with 35mm.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. October 2006 @ 09:41
|
Senior Member
|
23. October 2006 @ 08:50 |
Link to this message
|
Tech never changes.... Pfffft.
Seriously though, the advances in resolution are about to become very negligible. For the common individual with a television under 48" it's getting pretty hard to tell the difference. A lot of people can't tell between 720p and 1080p as it is; but if they try to go any higher, I firmly believe that people won't be able to tell the difference at all. It would require nicer equipment than most studios use to film with right now. I don't know how likely it is to see them upgrade that any time soon. (Although I wouldn't mind seeing shrek 3 in a theatre at 2000p, but that's a slightly bigger screen, lol.)
Really though, anything higher tan 1080p is going to be pretty futile for the general masses, for a lot of users that's already true of the current HD era. A shame too, because they're missing a lot!
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. October 2006 @ 08:51
|
|
hughjars
Suspended permanently
|
23. October 2006 @ 09:45 |
Link to this message
|
Exactly Handsom.
Unless you have a screen supporting true 1080p (native resolution of 1920x1080) it's meaningless anyway.
The same applies to small screens (and for 1080p to mean much you are talking over 42").
Not that it'll stop people convincing themselves that they see vast differences (not when you've been only too willing to help a sales guy convince you out of £2k+ :lol: )
For anything more the whole industry needs new gear (and as yet there's precious little sign of anyone broadcasting in anything other than 720p/1080i for a long time to come - Sky and the BBC's brand new service which only started this summer for instance is firmly in the 720p/1080i camp and will be for years).
|
|
rokmsokm
Newbie
|
23. October 2006 @ 10:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Still on a 27" tube myself... I picked it up 6 years ago for 185 bucks. I'll wait till it goes and buy another one!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
magictown
Newbie
|
30. August 2012 @ 05:01 |
Link to this message
|
Yea, I bought a 42" Cinema (£2 glasses) 3D 1080p set to watch the 2012 Olympics in 3D for £300 which is as good if not better than my expensive other big brand TV's !
|
