Plasma panel collapse coming soon?

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

From the Beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4110283.stm

Analysts say Sony would be better off sticking to rival technology LCD.

With plasma and LCD competing to be the most popular flat television
technology, plasma currently has the advantage in that its screens can be
made significantly larger.

Yet Sharp, one of Sony's television rivals, is already concentrating on LCD
screens in the belief it will eventually be able to produce models as large
as those using plasma technology.

'Little room to lower costs'

The Nihon Keizai Shimbun newspaper said Sony, the world's number two plasma
TV maker behind Matsushita, owner of Panasonic, and ahead of third-largest
Hitachi, would exit the plasma business as early as the spring of 2005.

Sony responded with a statement that while it would concentrate on LCD
screens, it had no plans to pull out of plasma.

Electronics analyst Kazuya Yamamoto said it was difficult for Sony to make a
profit out of plasma screens.

"Because Sony relies 100% on others for its panels, it has little room to
lower costs," he said.
67 answers Last reply
More about plasma panel collapse coming soon
  1. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:15:44 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
    <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

    >From the Beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4110283.stm

    >The Nihon Keizai Shimbun newspaper said Sony, the world's number two plasma
    >TV maker behind Matsushita, owner of Panasonic, and ahead of third-largest
    >Hitachi, would exit the plasma business as early as the spring of 2005.

    >"Because Sony relies 100% on others for its panels, it has little room to
    >lower costs," he said.

    These two statements are in apparent conflict but the point they make
    is that, despite being the number two plasma marketer, Sony does not
    make any plasma panels and must pay someone's elses profit for them.
    Not a good position for competition.

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

    "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
    news:6h4fs0d5rk7vhk5bq4vtroui1vf09p264n@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:15:44 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
    > <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >>From the Beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4110283.stm
    >
    >>The Nihon Keizai Shimbun newspaper said Sony, the world's number two
    >>plasma
    >>TV maker behind Matsushita, owner of Panasonic, and ahead of third-largest
    >>Hitachi, would exit the plasma business as early as the spring of 2005.
    >
    >>"Because Sony relies 100% on others for its panels, it has little room to
    >>lower costs," he said.
    >
    > These two statements are in apparent conflict but the point they make
    > is that, despite being the number two plasma marketer, Sony does not
    > make any plasma panels and must pay someone's elses profit for them.
    > Not a good position for competition.
    >
    > Kal

    indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in the near
    term is news to many
  3. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:28:28 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
    <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

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

    It was inevitable.

    Kal (who is not sorry he just bought a plasma)
  4. 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

    The consensus opinion that I read for large flat panel displays, in
    the 37" and up size, is that plasma has and will have an inherent price
    advantage. The cost of building a plasma manufacturing plants is in the
    several hundred million dollar range while an LCD plant is a billion
    plus range. Yes, the LCD plant may have the LCD computer monitor market
    to help recover it's capital cost, but it is still a big difference in
    cost to make up.

    While the computer crowd may think LCD displays will win for TVs,
    plasma simply currently has a better picture for video. I spent a long
    time deciding what HD TV to get and ended up buying a Panasonic
    commercial 42" HD plasma. The picture quality for HD channels and DVD
    material is amazing. I was never able to get pass the poor black levels
    of even the better LCD TVs such as the Sharp Aquos, the improved but
    still present motion smear, and the pixelation picture noise I would see
    for slow moving objects.

    Before anybody posts about short lifespan or high power consumption, I
    have measured the power consumption of the Panasonic TH-42PHD7UY 42" HD
    plasma. It averages around only 120 to 140 Watts with occasional swings
    down to < 100 Watts for dark scenes and up to 150 to 160 Watts for white
    scenes. Compare that to the 80 Watts my 10 year old 27" Sony CRT draws
    (with a screen area 46% of the 42" plasma). Both Matsushita / Panasonic
    and Pioneer have made major strides in reducing power consumption and
    increasing lifespan for plasmas with ratings of 60,000 hours or more to
    1/2 brightness.

    Sony may be making plans to exit the plasma TV market just because
    they don't make the glass and thus can't keep much of the profits for
    selling the set. The business decision may be to focus on one technology
    and hope it pays off. Too bad if true, as their recently introduced
    XS955 plasmas are much improved sets over the earlier models.

    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.

    Alan Figgatt

    Oops, that ended up being a long rant...
  5. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    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.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/ShatnerHair.gif
    AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
    spam@ftc.gov |
  6. 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
    >

    Not to those who have been paying attention.

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

    Jeff Rife wrote:

    > 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.
    >

    <http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=55800804>

    "Samsung SDI intends to invest about 30 billion won to begin producing
    large size 80 and 102 in. [1920x1080 plasma] panels the first half of
    next year".

    I have no idea what the MSRP will be, but I would expect shipping costs
    (with insurance) to be more than the price of a CRT RPTV.

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

    Jeff Rife 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.

    But you fixating on the resolution which for a 45" TV which at a, say,
    viewing distance of 10 feet is not the most important consideration.
    Figure out how many arc minutes the apparent viewing angle is of the 45"
    16:9 screen is at 10 feet. (Answer approx 1085 x 625 arc minutes).
    Unless you are using the set as a PC game display or watching it up real
    close, the 1920x1080 resolution won't add much. The advantage of
    1920x1080 only really comes into play for really big sets, say > 50".
    Dynamic range of the contrast & color and refresh rate are arguably more
    important.

    Many who have brought the 45" Aquos display are not completely happy
    with it. The screen has this soft look and can't be driven at 1920x1080
    from a PC without a lot of workarounds, the last time I checked in on
    the very long threads on it in avsforum.com. But some of that is due to
    it being a first generation big 1920x1080 TV with limits probably caused
    by carrying over hardware designs from the 1366x768 sets.

    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. At $8K list, it costs more than the list
    for 50" HD plasmas, but not the better picture for movies or TV watching.

    If Sharp drops the price to match the current typical $7K MSRP for the
    brand name 50" consumer plasmas, it is a very good bet that the HD
    plasmas will drop in price to stay ahead. Don't expect to see a price
    drop to $4K MSRP for the 45" Aquos anytime soon. In fact, there was a
    report yesterday that prices for LCD monitor screens may start
    rising in 2nd quarter 2005.

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

    "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
    news:10sg880kakg3h56@corp.supernews.com...
    > 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
    >
    > Not to those who have been paying attention.
    >
    > Matthew

    I remember a few years ago that there was quite a discussion here as to the
    future of plasma versus other technologies.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Randy Sweeney wrote:

    >
    >
    > I remember a few years ago that there was quite a discussion here as to the
    > future of plasma versus other technologies.
    >

    Some weren't paying attention then, either.

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

    Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > Jeff Rife wrote:
    >
    > > 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.
    > >
    >
    > <http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=55800804>
    >
    > "Samsung SDI intends to invest about 30 billion won to begin producing
    > large size 80 and 102 in. [1920x1080 plasma] panels the first half of
    > next year".

    OK, I stand corrected. Now, how many people will buy an 80" display
    at *any* price? When we see a 1920x1080 50" plasma, we can make
    comparisons. But, with the ever-increasing size of plasmas with more
    pixels, I suspect that they can't easily make the cells smaller.

    I know that some people think "larger is better", but part of the reason
    that flat panel displays have taken off is the smaller space they need.
    Clearing out the whole wall for the panel isn't something people are
    going to do.

    --
    Jeff Rife | "I've never understood the female capacity to
    SPAM bait: | avoid a direct answer to any question."
    AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
    spam@ftc.gov | -- Mr. Spock, "This Side of Paradise"
  12. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:zMednSdkqdsTGlrcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
    > From the Beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4110283.stm
    >
    > Analysts say Sony would be better off sticking to rival technology LCD.
    >
    > With plasma and LCD competing to be the most popular flat television
    > technology, plasma currently has the advantage in that its screens can be
    > made significantly larger.

    I'm a recent but enthusiastic arrival on the large-screen HDTV scene (a
    serious wannabe, not a present owner), I've been pouring over the huge
    amount of web material available, and I'm foolish enough to venture a
    prediction: everything, including plasma, lcd projection, dlp projection,
    and large direct lcd will be swept away by ILA rear projection. I say this
    because it seems to be making such rapid progress for home use, and because
    it has such a solid background in commercial and institutional use.

    Of course, this is only a medium -term prediction, which in the HDTV world
    means maybe 10 years. After that it's anyone's guess (dancing 3-D holograms
    anyone?) .

    I now retreat into my foxhole and await the incoming artillery... :<)
  13. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In the new Home Theater Magazine there is a review on the JVC 61Z575 D-ILA

    Retina Searing bright.
    But the blacks aren't that great.
    So so with DVD (artifacts, JVCs scaler) but HDTV is very good.

    They said that if the lamp brightness was switchable (hi, med low) the
    blacks
    should be better.


    --
    Ric Seyler

    --------------------------------------
    "Homer no function beer well without."
    - H.J. Simpson
  14. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Jeff Rife wrote:

    > Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    >
    >>Jeff Rife wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>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.
    >>>
    >>
    >><http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=55800804>
    >>
    >>"Samsung SDI intends to invest about 30 billion won to begin producing
    >>large size 80 and 102 in. [1920x1080 plasma] panels the first half of
    >>next year".
    >
    >
    > OK, I stand corrected. Now, how many people will buy an 80" display
    > at *any* price?

    I suspect that Mitsubishi hasn't sold very many of their Alpha HDTVs,
    though the street price has fallen as low as $13,000. It's far cheaper
    to do those sizes with a FP system, including the light management.

    > When we see a 1920x1080 50" plasma, we can make
    > comparisons. But, with the ever-increasing size of plasmas with more
    > pixels, I suspect that they can't easily make the cells smaller.

    There may well be a lower bound in cell size.

    > I know that some people think "larger is better", but part of the reason
    > that flat panel displays have taken off is the smaller space they need.
    > Clearing out the whole wall for the panel isn't something people are
    > going to do.
    >

    Certainly not the average TV buyer. I'm contemplating a 73" Mitsubishi
    and the space it is going into would be large enough for an 85" flat
    panel. Once flat panel displays become cheap enough (think OLED printed
    on offset presses), I wouldn't be at all surprised if people were
    willing to move the furniture out of the way.

    Then again, an OLED screen could be rolled up when not in use.

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

    "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1c3235a6dfc5a40e9899fa@news.nabs.net...


    > OK, I stand corrected. Now, how many people will buy an 80" display
    > at *any* price?

    I'll take an 80" please.

    Maybe two (one for the bedroom)
  16. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
    news:MPG.1c31b3bab7d7616d9899f8@news.nabs.net:

    > 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.
    >

    The good news about these LCD's is they are continuing to make them
    better and cheaper. Eventually I will buy the Sharp 45 inch or somehing
    better that can convert to 1080p. I am waiting a year or two, just
    because I really can't spend the money now. There is no way in hell I
    would buy a plasma.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
    news:MPG.1c31b3bab7d7616d9899f8@news.nabs.net:

    > 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.
    >


    BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | November 29, 2004, Monday

    Signs of a Glut And Lower Prices

    By ERIC A. TAUB (NYT)

    ABSTRACT - Glut of liquid crystal display flat-panel televisions, called
    LCD's, are about to enter market, result of boom in new factories;
    analysts say prices will drop as much as 30 percent by end of 2005.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    RobH wrote:
    > Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
    > news:MPG.1c31b3bab7d7616d9899f8@news.nabs.net:
    >
    > BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | November 29, 2004, Monday
    >
    > Signs of a Glut And Lower Prices
    >
    > By ERIC A. TAUB (NYT)
    >
    > ABSTRACT - Glut of liquid crystal display flat-panel televisions, called
    > LCD's, are about to enter market, result of boom in new factories;
    > analysts say prices will drop as much as 30 percent by end of 2005.

    A counter press article: "Rumors circulate that Samsung will raise
    panel prices" in January.

    http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20041215A5024.html

    Reports are that some of the Taiwan TFT-LCD panel makers will report a
    loss and many of the other LCD makers are showing big profit drops. We
    have been in a period of rapid price drops for smaller to mid sized LCD
    panels, but that may level off for a period if few companies are making
    money. Complex situation as all the makers are chasing market share and
    building increased capacity to go after it. It will be interesting to
    see who wins. Despite my comments on the Sharp 45" Aquos, I think the
    Aquos G series are the best buys for LCD TVs on the market right now.
    Sharp may be in the best situation among the Japanese companies to
    thrive in the LCD TV market, don't know about Sony.

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

    "RicSeyler" <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> wrote

    > They said that if the lamp brightness was switchable (hi, med low) the
    > blacks should be better.

    This technology is really only 6 months old in terms of being in people's
    houses, being presented to the press last June. Based on the reviews I've
    read, it has the best basic mathematics, especially the fact that there is
    less dead space than competing technologies, plus it seems likely to be more
    controllable. There's an interesting review of the JVC 52 inch at
    http://www.ultimateavmag.com/directviewandptvtelevisions/1204jvc/

    To be honest, when I say it will sweep away the others, I'm ignoring the
    fact that some people want ultra-thin models to hang on the wall, and it's
    unlikely to be that. But it is remarkably light and compact for its screen
    size.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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 <<==+
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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 |
  31. 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?
  32. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "poldy" <poldy@kfu.com> wrote in message
    news:poldy-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.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Randy Sweeney wrote:

    > "poldy" <poldy@kfu.com> wrote in message
    > news:poldy-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
  34. 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.
  35. 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)
  36. 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
  37. 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.
    >
    >
    >
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:42:36 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
    <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

    >
    >"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

    Hard to account for the receptor matrix irregularity either way.

    Kal


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

    "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
    news:13ljs0h7lvkj330hr1tsf4a27k3mvulaic@4ax.com...

    >>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
    >
    > Hard to account for the receptor matrix irregularity either way.
    >
    > Kal

    no one yet has the resolution for 1:1 matchup anyway... this is just an
    elegant way to get the image on the retina so that it is focused properly at
    all the points.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Randy Sweeney wrote:

    > "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
    > news:13ljs0h7lvkj330hr1tsf4a27k3mvulaic@4ax.com...
    >
    >
    >>>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
    >>
    >>Hard to account for the receptor matrix irregularity either way.
    >>
    >>Kal
    >
    >
    > no one yet has the resolution for 1:1 matchup anyway... this is just an
    > elegant way to get the image on the retina so that it is focused properly at
    > all the points.
    >

    Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the
    visual subsystem of the brain.

    Matthew

    --
    Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
    You can't win
    You can't break even
    You can't get out of the game
  43. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:39:41 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
    <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

    >Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the
    >visual subsystem of the brain.

    Good point and, clearly, they do not. Only the central foveal cones
    have a direct 1:1:1 connection to optic nerve fibers while all the
    others converge to a varying degree.

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

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

    > Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the visual
    > subsystem of the brain.
    >
    > Matthew

    Since your eye lens optics consists of a simple convex refractive lens,
    that's kinda given by physics
  45. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
    news:q25ks011qnjkodm5sj2qsj0n41ufftps7m@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:39:41 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
    > <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
    >
    >>Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the
    >>visual subsystem of the brain.
    >
    > Good point and, clearly, they do not. Only the central foveal cones
    > have a direct 1:1:1 connection to optic nerve fibers while all the
    > others converge to a varying degree.
    >
    > Kal


    the image input onto the retina is a simple real image, so processing behind
    the curtain doesn't matter.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

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

    Quite possibly, but keep in mind that there is no broadcast currently anywhere
    near the full 1920X1080 resolution. The best that's currently out there is
    about 1400X1080. With the severe bandwidth limitations, things won't improve
    for quite awhile. This is one of the reasons that some of the HD channels on
    DirecTV look like poop. HDNet movies is absolutely terrible, almost looks like
    VHS.
  47. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Vidguy7 (vidguy7@aol.com) 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.
    >
    > Quite possibly, but keep in mind that there is no broadcast currently anywhere
    > near the full 1920X1080 resolution. The best that's currently out there is
    > about 1400X1080.

    I think that non-broadcast content (HD-DVD, computer inputs, etc.) will
    help drive things.

    There's a display in my local Best Buy with a computer connected to a
    40" or so flat panel that looks great. It's the first big display I
    have seen that looks awesome with computer input. It's just needs more
    pixels.

    Also, a display that can do 1080p solves a lot of the issues with
    compromising quality for one of the HD formats. Both 720p and 1080i will
    benefit.

    --
    Jeff Rife | "I feel the need...the need for
    SPAM bait: | expeditious velocity"
    AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
    spam@ftc.gov | -- Brain
  48. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

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

    Most of the LCDs I've seen don't scale SD material as well as some other
    technologies. But, the motion smearing that was so bad just a couple of years
    ago, is much improved. Also keep in mind that a 1920X1080 display (like the
    Sharp 45") must do more scaling with SD broadcasts than a lower resolution
    panel. This is why many people complain about the picture quality of SD
    material on the Sharp.
  49. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
    >news:q25ks011qnjkodm5sj2qsj0n41ufftps7m@4ax.com...
    >> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:39:41 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
    >> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the
    >>>visual subsystem of the brain.
    >>
    >> Good point and, clearly, they do not. Only the central foveal cones
    >> have a direct 1:1:1 connection to optic nerve fibers while all the
    >> others converge to a varying degree.
    >>
    >> Kal
    >
    >
    >the image input onto the retina is a simple real image, so processing behind
    >the curtain doesn't matter.

    It does matter because, since only the small section of the field of
    view that the eye is looking at directly is presented to the brain in
    pixel for pixel detail and the rest is some kind of summary, only that
    portion of the image needs to _be_ in pixel for pixel detail and the
    rest can be presented in any form which can cause the same summary to
    reach the brain. All you have to do is track the eye movements and
    sharpen up the image which falls on the central part of the retina.

    If you don't believe that the detail is missing from the outer
    portions of the field of view, try this experiment. Look directly
    at the word _be_ in the center of the above paragraph. Without moving
    your eye from that point, try to read any of the words more than 3
    words away from it in any direction. If you can, make sure you're
    not moving your eye.


    joemooreaterolsdotcom
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV TV Sony LCD Home Theatre