Cheap(er), small(er) HD sets: When?

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

Yes, I'm asking you to predict the future. Yes, I know it's probably
a silly question, but still ...

The area we have allocated for a TV set will accomodate a box the
size of a conventional 23" TV set (if such a thing exists. Bigger
than a 20" and smaller than a 25" anyway). The space will never get
any bigger.

The flat-panel HD monitors of that size currently on the market are
priced from about $2K and up. I don't see any CRT-based monitors like
that at all.

So, what are the chances for something of my desired size, but less
than, say, $500 in the next few years?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com

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

For instance I bought a new Sony KD-34XBR960 a 34" direct view wide
screen set from Sony for $2199. The set it replaced was the
KV-34XBR910 that sold for $2499. The new set is $300 lower in price
than last year.
I read that most sets loose about $200 per year even though they have
more features. If sales really pick up in a year or so I would think
even $400 less per year on the $2000 sets would be possible.

Another I found out is that when a new set comes out discount internet
dealers can't lower the price by maybe $50 after the first month. $50
more the second moth. As the months go by the price is discounted
even more. I paid Sony retail as I did not feel like waiting to save
$200.
hdtvfan Hope my set gets here tomorrow as they promised.

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 00:04:14 -0400, "Curmudgeon" <biteme@nospam.net>
wrote:

>True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view
>sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million
>for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up
>by the mask.
>
>
>"Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns951F79A309BVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
>> Yes, I'm asking you to predict the future. Yes, I know it's probably
>> a silly question, but still ...
>>
>> The area we have allocated for a TV set will accomodate a box the
>> size of a conventional 23" TV set (if such a thing exists. Bigger
>> than a 20" and smaller than a 25" anyway). The space will never get
>> any bigger.
>>
>> The flat-panel HD monitors of that size currently on the market are
>> priced from about $2K and up. I don't see any CRT-based monitors like
>> that at all.
>>
>> So, what are the chances for something of my desired size, but less
>> than, say, $500 in the next few years?
>>
>> --
>> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com
>

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

> True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard
> direct view sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million
> pixels (or 1 million for that matter) into such small spaces when
> so much real estate is taken up by the mask.

Just make the mask smaller Sony has a smaller aperture grill so why not a
smaller mask?

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

"Curmudgeon" <biteme@nospam.net> wrote:

>True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view
>sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million
>for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up
>by the mask.
>
Most 19 inch CRT computer monitors can display at 1600 by 1200 or
1.92 million pixels. What am I overlooking?

joemooreaterolsdotcom

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

Joe Moore wrote:
> "Curmudgeon" <biteme@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view
>>sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million
>>for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up
>>by the mask.
>>
>
> Most 19 inch CRT computer monitors can display at 1600 by 1200 or
> 1.92 million pixels. What am I overlooking?

Watching TV on a display that small is no longer considered a "group
experience" It wasn't that long ago that a 19-20" was considered to be a
living room size set.

Matthew (whoi is looking for something bigger than 56" )


--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.

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

>> Just make the mask smaller Sony has a smaller aperture grill so why not
>a
>> smaller mask?
>
>
>An even better question may be, at what size monitor does HD not make
>a significant enough difference in appearance so that most people will
>notice it? The difference is greatest on large screens, the smaller
>you go, the less noticeable it is. Is there some monitor size below
>which HD just doesn't make much difference?
>
>

This reminds me of people that say that below an 8x10 print size medium format
or even large format film doesn't show any advantages. The truth is even with a
4 inch print the advantages of a larger film is evident. Assuming the actually
TV can display a good quality picture on its own then the advantages of HD
should be evident even in very small displays.

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <mlmartin@me.com> wrote:

>Joe Moore wrote:
>> "Curmudgeon" <biteme@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view
>>>sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million
>>>for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up
>>>by the mask.
>>>
>>
>> Most 19 inch CRT computer monitors can display at 1600 by 1200 or
>> 1.92 million pixels. What am I overlooking?
>
>Watching TV on a display that small is no longer considered a "group
>experience" It wasn't that long ago that a 19-20" was considered to be a
>living room size set.

I was addressing the practicality of HDTV on a small CRT, not the
desirability. I was just saying that if it's possible to produce a 19
inch CRT computer monitor which displays 1600 by 1200, then there is
no technical reason why a 23 inch CRT HDTV would be impractical. Which
is what the original poster was asking about.

Whether the market for such a set would be big enough to make
producing it worthwhile is another issue.



joemooreaterolsdotcom

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

Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns951F79A309BVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com>...
> Yes, I'm asking you to predict the future. Yes, I know it's probably
> a silly question, but still ...
>
> The area we have allocated for a TV set will accomodate a box the
> size of a conventional 23" TV set (if such a thing exists. Bigger
> than a 20" and smaller than a 25" anyway). The space will never get
> any bigger.
>
Flat panel LCDs are very nice at that size, but costly. They should
come down slightly.

Another idea is to simply use a regular 4:3 TV fed by component or
S-Video cables. You can display HD TV on an SD TV with no problem (it
looks a little squished, but once you get used to it...) The benefit
is that SD channels look as they should.

I have a 10 year old 27" TV upstairs that performs better than my 47"
HD downstairs on SD. HD is acceptable, just smaller and slightly
squished.

I think that for sizes less than 27" (other than LCD or plasma), just
get a regular SD (CRT) TV.

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

Matthew Vaughan wrote:

> "Curmudgeon" <biteme@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:YI3Hc.33219$w56.14260@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
>>True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct
>
> view
>
>>sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1
>
> million
>
>>for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken
>
> up
>
>>by the mask.
>
>
> Oh? Then how come computer monitors have been doing it for so long?

How many pixels does a 36" CRT computer monitor have? The shadow mask is
only part of the problem.

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.

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

jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote in
news:b0738dc6.0407100749.20f59adb@posting.google.com:

> Bert,
>
> Well I'm curious why you've allocated a specific size space? Have your
> puchased an entertainment center that allows for a specific size?
>
> The first thing you should know about HDTV is that its native format
> is not as square shape as SDTV (Standard Definiition TV, NTSC). SDTV
> is 4:3, HDTV is actually broadcast in widescreen format (16:9). This
> is why you see so many widescreen HDTVs being sold, it's the native
> format and an HDTV broadcast will fill out the entire screen. Another
> benefit of a widescreen HDTV is that all DVD players have a 16:9
> output option and many movies are formated in 1:85:1 (Academy Flat)
> widescreen, in which case the movie will fill out the widescreen with
> no black bars.
>
> Now you can buy a 4:3 (non widescreen) HDTVs but the result is you'll
> be watching everything HD with black bars at the top and bottom. As
> more HD content becomes available, eventually it will get to a point
> where you're only using 23 inches of your 27" HDTV, the black bars
> will also cause burn-in.

Just a nitpick here. TV screens are measured diagonally. A 4:3 27-inch
screen letter-boxed to 16:9 will have the same width (21.6 inches) as the
full tube, but will be only 3/4 the height (or 12.15 inches) Diagonally
that would be 24.78 inches or 24-3/4 about, not 23.



--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

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

>Now assuming you know all this and you still demand a 4:3 HDTV that
>will meet your requirements, your best bet is an LCD display. Look at
>the 20" Sanyo CLT2054. This display is actually "EDTV", but with
>anything that small it's not going to make much difference if it's
>EDTV or HDTV, unless youy're going to be sitting less than 3' from the
>screen. Walmart carries this model for around $700. If you had just a
>tad more, there is a 32" Sanyo DS32830H which is a direct-view (tube)
>HDTV with integrated HDTV tunner, it goes for around $600 if you can
>find it.
>
>

The current LCDs all look terrible. The same way an LCD looks with a PC when
not operating at its native resolution. Very blurry.

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

Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95218546DE228VeebleFetzer@news.visi.com>...
> t_pascal@my-deja.com (T. Pascal) wrote in
> news:2611b663.0407091000.5c897475@posting.google.com:
>
> > Another idea is to simply use a regular 4:3 TV fed by component or
> > S-Video cables. You can display HD TV on an SD TV with no problem (it
> > looks a little squished, but once you get used to it...) The benefit
> > is that SD channels look as they should.
>
> When an HD tuner/receiver downconverts an HD signal to SD, can't it
> "letterbox" it? Is this a feature on some tuners?

>

It is available, but mine doesn't (appear to have it). Most idiots
don't like letterboxing, and would post questions like "How do you get
rid of the black bars at the top and bottom?"

I was recently at the local store and saw some very inexpensive ($400)
27" widescreen, non-HD CRT sets. That would fit the ticket, except
that SD stuff is stretched. When more and more HD material comes out,
these sets could be the exact ticket for rooms around the house.

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

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:02:23 +0000, Joe Moore wrote:

> I was addressing the practicality of HDTV on a small CRT, not the
> desirability. I was just saying that if it's possible to produce a 19
> inch CRT computer monitor which displays 1600 by 1200, then there is no
> technical reason why a 23 inch CRT HDTV would be impractical. Which is
> what the original poster was asking about.
>
> Whether the market for such a set would be big enough to make producing
> it worthwhile is another issue.

Right, not much market for an small but expensive, high-resolution
wide-screen CRT. LCD's are taking-over the "small but good" sector of the
market.