Plasma panel collapse coming soon?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Alan Figgatt <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9idnaOSRrmhoFXcRVn-hQ@comcast.com:
> I have seen the Sharp 45" Aquos at a number of stores. In all cases,
> the plasmas were providing a better looking picture. I was rather
> disappointed as I thought at one time that the 1920x1080 resolution
> would make it the better set.

Same here. I made the trip to the electronics store over the weekend
specifically to see the new Aquos. This store had all manner of TVs, LCD
and plasma, from Panasonic to Sony to Pioneer and so on. I don't think I
saw a single plasma that didn't provide a better, brighter, clearer picture
than the new Sharp, plus, despite what it says, the 170 degree viewing
angle is, in my opinion, bunk. There was a very noticeable drop off in
brightness very quickly. Not as bad as on my computer LCD monitor, but bad
enough that I no longer think I'll be dropping the $5+k on it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Noway Nohow wrote:

> Alan Figgatt <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:r9idnaOSRrmhoFXcRVn-hQ@comcast.com:
>
>> I have seen the Sharp 45" Aquos at a number of stores. In all cases,
>>the plasmas were providing a better looking picture. I was rather
>>disappointed as I thought at one time that the 1920x1080 resolution
>>would make it the better set.
>
>
> Same here. I made the trip to the electronics store over the weekend
> specifically to see the new Aquos. This store had all manner of TVs, LCD
> and plasma, from Panasonic to Sony to Pioneer and so on. I don't think I
> saw a single plasma that didn't provide a better, brighter, clearer picture
> than the new Sharp, plus, despite what it says, the 170 degree viewing
> angle is, in my opinion, bunk. There was a very noticeable drop off in
> brightness very quickly. Not as bad as on my computer LCD monitor, but bad
> enough that I no longer think I'll be dropping the $5+k on it.

After a long research period, I decided it was time to get off the pot
and ended up buying a Panasonic commercial TH-42PHD7UY 42" HD plasma.
Despite my hesitation at buying a set with an odd pixel resolution of
1024x768 - not 16:9 you may notice because it has rectangular pixels,
the picture quality for DVD & HD is amazing. Vast improvement over my 10
year 27" Sony CRT. Tweaked the setup a bit and am now getting good
picture quality for SD channels.

Cost was a lot less than the $5K to $6K discounts prices for the 45"
Aquos. For TV and DVD viewing, the Panny plasma wins at the moment. The
next one to two years will be an interesting time to follow which flat
panel technology will grab how much market share and where the prices
will end up for the Xmas 2005 and 2006 seasons.

Alan Figgatt

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

But whatever happened to the display system that projects directly on the
retina? A 1 pixel per rod/cone system would be the highest possible
resolution, and it wouldn't need any space on the wall at all.

(Of course it might be difficult to reach for your beer during a football
game with your eyes completely covered by the display system 🙂.
--
>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Thomas A. Horsley" <tom.horsley@att.net> wrote in message
news:u7jnbb6oy.fsf@att.net...
> But whatever happened to the display system that projects directly on the
> retina? A 1 pixel per rod/cone system would be the highest possible
> resolution, and it wouldn't need any space on the wall at all.
>
> (Of course it might be difficult to reach for your beer during a football
> game with your eyes completely covered by the display system 🙂.


It takes an incredible number of pixels to map one to one with the retina
receptors, about 75-126 megapixels/eye (according to what I have read) - and
those pixels would be incredibly small and well focused... not to mention
that feeding them with video would be a bit tough =126mb x 24 x 60=
200Gb/sec for mono or 400Gb/sec for stereo (not accounting for overlap
compression)

The direct retina projectors I have seen in research labs, typically using
scanning lasers, are crude at best today.

Research continues.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in the near
>term is news to many

IMO the picture quality of the LCDs is still not in the same league as the
better plasmas. I went to Harvey Electronics to see the new Sharp 45" LCD.
Despite its 1920X1080 resolution, it didn't begin to look as good as the 50"
Fujitsu across the aisle. Not even close. Actually, even the 37" Sharp LCD
looked alot better than the 45" Sharp, despite its lower resolution.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>The Sharp LC-45GD6U 45" 1920x1080 LCD display available for about $5,800
>beats any 42-50" plasma in resolution.

Jeff, it's not just about rez. There are many other aspects to PQ other than
resolution. Looking at the new 45" Sharp near the new Fujitsu 50" plasma (lower
rez) showed that the Sharp wasn't even in the same league as far as PQ goes.
Even the salesman admitted that he wasn't wowed by the new Sharp despite its
extra resolution. Keep in mind that nothing is being broadcast beyond
approximately 1400x1080.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> Same here. I made the trip to the electronics store over the weekend
>specifically to see the new Aquos. This store had all manner of TVs, LCD
>and plasma, from Panasonic to Sony to Pioneer and so on. I don't think I
>saw a single plasma that didn't provide a better, brighter, clearer picture

Yup. Once people stop looking at just the #s, they'll see there are many other
aspects to picture quality than simple resolution. I was really hoping to be
impressed by the Sharp, but wasn't at all. On the other hand, I think the Sharp
37" LCD has a dynamite picture.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Vidguy7 (vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Yup. Once people stop looking at just the #s, they'll see there are many other
> aspects to picture quality than simple resolution. I was really hoping to be
> impressed by the Sharp, but wasn't at all.

It's definitely a first try, but the next units should be better.

The important thing about this is that it should start 42-60" HD displays
*down* in price but *up* in resolution and quality.

--
Jeff Rife | "The Babylon Project was our last, best hope
SPAM bait: | for peace.... It failed."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov | -- Commander Susan Ivanova, 2260

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:

>
> indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in the near
> term is news to many
>

<http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=CFZXIG0FLCR20QSNDBCCKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=55801326>

Matthew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

> Vidguy7 (vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>Yup. Once people stop looking at just the #s, they'll see there are many other
>>aspects to picture quality than simple resolution. I was really hoping to be
>>impressed by the Sharp, but wasn't at all.
>
>
> It's definitely a first try, but the next units should be better.
>
> The important thing about this is that it should start 42-60" HD displays
> *down* in price but *up* in resolution and quality.

"start 42-60" HD displays *down* in price"? Prices for HD TVs have been
falling all year. At the higher end, for example, the MSRP for the
Panasonic 50" HD Plasma has fallen from $8500 to $7000 just this
calendar year. And that includes the mid-year upgrade from the
TH-50PX20U to the TH-50PX25U which added ATSC tuner and cablecard slot.
We will almost certainly see another round of major price cuts in the
late winter/spring as the next gen models come out. Still expensive for
most, but not as expensive.

As for resolution, that is the area where the big direct view LCDs
will put pressure on the really big plasmas. We will probably see some
60+" plasmas going to 1920x1080p next fall and eventually the 50"
although that may take a while due to technical issues. I would like to
see a 42" HD plasma with 1280x720 or 1366x768 pixels - that would be in
many ways the ideal mid-range TV set. Resolution greater than that will
add very little to a 42" display in normal living/rec room use.

Alan Figgatt

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Alan Figgatt (afiggatt@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > The important thing about this is that it should start 42-60" HD displays
> > *down* in price but *up* in resolution and quality.
>
> "start 42-60" HD displays *down* in price"? Prices for HD TVs have been
> falling all year. At the higher end, for example, the MSRP for the
> Panasonic 50" HD Plasma has fallen from $8500 to $7000 just this
> calendar year.

Right, but the display is still the same. This time next year, it should
be 1920x1080 pixels at a *lower* price.

> I would like to
> see a 42" HD plasma with 1280x720 or 1366x768 pixels - that would be in
> many ways the ideal mid-range TV set. Resolution greater than that will
> add very little to a 42" display in normal living/rec room use.

It would give a lot more options in the PC/TV convergence area, though.
With only 720 pixels, you can't do a whole lot with icons that are visible
from 10' away. Having 1024 (or more) scan lines give a lot more options.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/SalesToFriends.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |

 

[Poldy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c31b3bab7d7616d9899f8@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in the near
> > term is news to many
>
> It's already happened.
>
> The Sharp LC-45GD6U 45" 1920x1080 LCD display available for about $5,800
> beats any 42-50" plasma in resolution. It's bit more expensive (the plasmas
> are around $3,600), but the amount of extra resolution makes the price
> reasonable: the LCD has around twice as many pixels as the plasmas.
>
> Consider, too, that the Sharp is less than 3 months old and was selling for
> the $8,000 MSRP *everywhere* until about a month ago. It's likely to
> be around $4,000 in six months, and there's no sign of a plasma with that
> much resolution at *any* size showing up in that timeframe.

How does that LCD fare for motion artifacts? Isn't the problem with
flat panel LCDs the smearing you get?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"poldy" <poldy@kfu.com> wrote in message
news😛oldy-049BE6.09250322122004@netnews.comcast.net...


> How does that LCD fare for motion artifacts? Isn't the problem with
> flat panel LCDs the smearing you get?

The motion issue isn't all (and some are worse than others) but the black
levels of most of the LCD's out there remind me of the washed out blacks of
the earlier PDP's.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:

> "poldy" <poldy@kfu.com> wrote in message
> news😛oldy-049BE6.09250322122004@netnews.comcast.net...
>
>
>
>>How does that LCD fare for motion artifacts? Isn't the problem with
>>flat panel LCDs the smearing you get?
>
>
> The motion issue isn't all (and some are worse than others) but the black
> levels of most of the LCD's out there remind me of the washed out blacks of
> the earlier PDP's.

IMHO, many LCDs are worse. The PDPs at least went grey. The poorer LCDs
seem to lose grey tracking at low output levels. In some, the blacks
look more like dark purple

Matthew

 

[Poldy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <EYKdndsHq7wWKlrcRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
Alan Figgatt <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:

> The real losers in the developing flat panel - LCD, plasma, and
> perhaps SED - and RP microdisplay (DLP, LCOS, LCD) wars will be the
> venerable direct view CRT. Sony dropped the 40" 4:3 set this year. In
> the next several years, the larger size brand name CRT TVs will start
> fading from the market as people shift to buying flat panels or RP TVs
> instead.

There are a lot more people who can afford direct views (which still
provide some of the best picture, inch for inch) and have space for them
than the larger displays.

This is where the mass market is, unless someone else comes in and makes
50-inch LCOS sets for under $2k as Intel promised and then had to back
out.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

poldy wrote:

> In article <EYKdndsHq7wWKlrcRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
> Alan Figgatt <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The real losers in the developing flat panel - LCD, plasma, and
>>perhaps SED - and RP microdisplay (DLP, LCOS, LCD) wars will be the
>>venerable direct view CRT. Sony dropped the 40" 4:3 set this year. In
>>the next several years, the larger size brand name CRT TVs will start
>>fading from the market as people shift to buying flat panels or RP TVs
>>instead.
>
>
> There are a lot more people who can afford direct views (which still
> provide some of the best picture, inch for inch) and have space for them
> than the larger displays.
>
> This is where the mass market is, unless someone else comes in and makes
> 50-inch LCOS sets for under $2k as Intel promised and then had to back
> out.

The mass market will probably still be CRT direct view till the end of
this decade, at least. Have you priced 30" and smaller NTSC TVs
recently? They are firmly under $10/inch at WalMart.

Matthew (WalMart == Mass Market)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message

> The mass market will probably still be CRT direct view till the end of
> this decade, at least. Have you priced 30" and smaller NTSC TVs recently?
> They are firmly under $10/inch at WalMart.
>
> Matthew (WalMart == Mass Market)

WalMart is sells 27" NTSC CRT sets for $177 -- an incredible $6.5 per inch
(an equivalent $400 for a 60" display)

and DVD+R/W recorders are going for $139

and people are making money on this.... Amazing

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Why limit ourselves with using an eye interface? Why not go for a direct
brain implant system, which has the benefit of allowing the blind to enjoy
HD too. Just think, you could exceed the rod/cone limitation by direct
neuron stimulation ;-)


"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QLudnZcF1eRdX1XcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
>
> "Thomas A. Horsley" <tom.horsley@att.net> wrote in message
> news:u7jnbb6oy.fsf@att.net...
>> But whatever happened to the display system that projects directly on the
>> retina? A 1 pixel per rod/cone system would be the highest possible
>> resolution, and it wouldn't need any space on the wall at all.
>>
>> (Of course it might be difficult to reach for your beer during a football
>> game with your eyes completely covered by the display system 🙂.
>
>
> It takes an incredible number of pixels to map one to one with the retina
> receptors, about 75-126 megapixels/eye (according to what I have read) -
> and those pixels would be incredibly small and well focused... not to
> mention that feeding them with video would be a bit tough =126mb x 24 x
> 60= 200Gb/sec for mono or 400Gb/sec for stereo (not accounting for overlap
> compression)
>
> The direct retina projectors I have seen in research labs, typically using
> scanning lasers, are crude at best today.
>
> Research continues.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:55:13 GMT, "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>Why limit ourselves with using an eye interface? Why not go for a direct
>brain implant system, which has the benefit of allowing the blind to enjoy
>HD too. Just think, you could exceed the rod/cone limitation by direct
>neuron stimulation ;-)

Not practical for high resolution and, also, would bypass some
connections essential for subconscious visual processing because of
the anatomy. Even direct retinal stimulation is probably better
accomplished via the lens since the receptor array is only very
approximately regular, although certainly not evenly spaced.

Kal

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message


> Not practical for high resolution and, also, would bypass some
> connections essential for subconscious visual processing because of
> the anatomy. Even direct retinal stimulation is probably better
> accomplished via the lens since the receptor array is only very
> approximately regular, although certainly not evenly spaced.
>
> Kal

IMO, some of the best work in this area is using holographic optical
elements to "bypass" the lens and gets direct mapping of the retina