what kind of television do you have or want to have?

[von Rothbart]

Next generation of flat panel HDTV using laser technology is just around the corner. Colors are more vibrant and deeper, images more life-like, more energy efficient, the screen is thinner and lighter and the elimination of frame around the screen.

 

[rdawson808]

Sorry, but I just can't bring myself to spend that much money on a tv. Even if I had the money I wouldn't.

bob

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Dmax

I used to play video games on my plasma and 95% of my source material is in 4:3. I use the intellegent zoom mode on the TV to stretch the image to 16:9. It would take days of having the same image on the screen to leave some sort of ghost or burn in image. The latest generation plasmas are even less susceptible to burn in.

LCDs are fine but I prefer plasmas because of the rich, vibrant, life-like colors and as well as deeper blacks. LCD are also a more expensive than plasmas of comparable size though the price gap is shrinking.

That's absurd. Really, I don't understand people trying to sell the concept of watching 4:3 material on a 16:9 TV by stretching the picture to a level of distortion, which completely ruins the intentions of the cinematographer. If you have to stretch the 4:3 picture to fit the 16:9 screen to avoid burn-in from the black bars, than your TV is susceptible to burn-in.

For deep blacks, if I were in the market for a TV I would get an SXRD TV.

Jon.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by von Rothbart

Next generation of flat panel HDTV using laser technology is just around the corner. Colors are more vibrant and deeper, images more life-like, more energy efficient, the screen is thinner and lighter and the elimination of frame around the screen.

Can't log into the NYT, please copy and paste article.

Thanks!

Jon.

 

[von Rothbart]

Here you go:

April 3, 2006
Mitsubishi Harnesses Colored Lasers to Produce New-Generation Lightweight HDTV
By MICHEL MARRIOTT
As if shopping for new flat-panel, high-definition television is not hard enough, Mitsubishi is scheduled to announce this week that it has developed commercial television that uses colored lasers to display bright, deep images on large, thin, lightweight screens "” surpassing images seen on film. The television sets, which Mitsubishi is calling the first of their kind, are expected to reach stores sometime late next year.

At the heart of the first generation of this new television is an existing rear-projection technology called digital light processing. In the past, this technology, developed by Texas Instruments, used white-light mercury lamps as the television's light source. With laser television, separate red, green and blue lasers are used in conjunction with an HDTV chip, said Frank DeMartin, vice president for marketing and product development at Mitsubishi.

He and Mitsubishi engineers said this provided a new look in large-screen units, signaling a move to lighter, slimmer profiles for rear-projection television. In terms of performance, Mr. DeMartin said, laser television promises a greater range and intensity of colors. He said the new sets would be made with compact, sculptured cabinets and remain relatively light because the screens would be advanced plastics rather than the glass common in plasma television flat-panel units.

The screens will be so lightweight that the need for frames will be significantly lessened, Mr. DeMartin added. This will give the television a cleaner, practically all-screen look.

Its lighter weight, about half that of plasma models with comparable screen sizes, will also have a smaller footprint, he said. For example, a 50-inch plasma or L.C.D. television requires stands up to 17 inches deep to rest securely, Mr. DeMartin said.

Laser television technology is not new. For years, engineers have experimented in laboratories and research centers, seeking to illuminate television images with lasers. But the most optimistic outlook had been for laser television to be available in two to three years. Power and costs were barriers to bringing the technology to the marketplace.

But Marty Zanfino, the director of product development for Mitsubishi, said those issues had been resolved, resulting in large-screen laser television that is expected to be competitively priced with plasma television in sizes of 52 inches and larger.

Mr. DeMartin said laser television would use about a third the power of conventional, large-screen models that depend on high-power lamps. In such television, he said, the lamps are required to be on at full power whenever the sets that use them are on. But Mitsubishi's new lasers, which are based in semiconductors, turn on and off when needed. For example, Mr. DeMartin said, when black is required in an image "” still a challenge for some plasma-based television "” the laser switches off.

These solid-state lasers, he added, will greatly outlast lamps. As a light source, he said, they are practically "permanent," meaning that the lasers should last for the set's lifetime.

A 52-inch model of the Mitsubishi laser television is scheduled to be demonstrated when the company shows its new lines on Friday in Huntington Beach, Calif. Mitsubishi is showing the new product at a time consumers are expressing interest in high-definition, flat-panel units.

Industry statistics show that consumers in the United States are buying large display television at twice the pace they did three years ago. Mitsubishi executives said Americans were buying five million high-definition television units a year, urged on by increased high-definition programming, the move to high-definition video consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, and high-definition DVD players coming to market.

But unlike old technologies based on the cathode-ray tube, or C.R.T., which remained basically unchanged for decades, flat-panel television is continuing to evolve rapidly.

At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Toshiba and Canon demonstrated their jointly developed S.E.D. (surface-conduction electron-emitter display) televisions, new flat-screen units that essentially combine the best of C.R.T. emitter technology with digital flat-panel technology. The two companies recently postponed their introduction until next year.

"It's a story of complexity," Ted Schadler, a Forrester Research analyst, said of the dizzying array of choices prospective buyers face. He said there were more technologies, more shapes and sizes and more competing manufacturers' agendas.

While he said the S.E.D. and laser television technologies had "characteristics that are extremely interesting," he warned that consumers and retailers were going to have to do their homework as the flat-panel choices grew more complex.

"Television used to be very, very simple," he said. "You bought a big one or a small one that was black and white or color."

That has all changed, Mr. Schadler said. "Now we've got complexity like buying real estate or buying a car or something," he said. "It's just gotten tremendously complicated."

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

 

[A Y]

Plasmas are about as susceptible to burn-in as CRTs --- that issue has been totally exaggerated. I'd break down the pros and cons of LCDs and plasmas like this:

Plasmas:
Pros: Relatively affordable, large sizes available, large viewing angle, decent black levels, nice colors, no motion lag
Cons: Heavy, power consumption goes up linearly with display area

LCDs:
Pros: technology of the future, light, low-power
Cons: terrible black levels, small viewing angle, motion lag, expensive, small

These are for direct view comparisons. Rear-projection LCDs have their own set of issues. There's no perfect TV set: it's just a matter of what compromises you're willing to live with.

Plasma TVs also have a screen shift function so that when you're watching 4:3 material, the borders will shift a few pixels left and right every so often to spread out the effect of the sharp border of the pillar boxing.

--Andre

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

Plasmas are about as susceptible to burn-in as CRTs --- that issue has been totally exaggerated. I'd break down the pros and cons of LCDs and plasmas like this:

Plasmas:
Pros: Relatively affordable, large sizes available, large viewing angle, decent black levels, nice colors, no motion lag
Cons: Heavy, power consumption goes up linearly with display area

LCDs:
Pros: technology of the future, light, low-power
Cons: terrible black levels, small viewing angle, motion lag, expensive, small

These are for direct view comparisons. Rear-projection LCDs have their own set of issues. There's no perfect TV set: it's just a matter of what compromises you're willing to live with.

Plasma TVs also have a screen shift function so that when you're watching 4:3 material, the borders will shift a few pixels left and right every so often to spread out the effect of the sharp border of the pillar boxing.

--Andre


My Rear-projection LCD has no image blur. And you can get the black level / contrast looking pretty good as long as you set the settings the right way.

However, if someone is thinking of a big screen TV from Sony, get the SXRD, it's awesome!

Jon.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by von Rothbart

Here you go:

Thanks.

Jon.

 

[zjpj83]

Yeah, my Pioneer is plasma.

My brother in law told me whoever makes the glass for all these screens (or something like that - I'm probably telling the story wrong) is going to be able to do so more cheaply, or there are going to be more manufacturers, or something like that. In any event, the result is going to be prices are going to drop on these flat panel thingys sometime soon in the future.

 

[Earthmover]

This is the TV I have, except that it's in a 50". It's the same model with the same stand from Costco:

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...opnav=&browse=

I really like it. After all the viewing angle, burn-in, black levels, etc. that you hear when buying a large TV, I decided to just ignore everyone and go see what their screens were like. The Sony rear LCDs had great color and brightness, good price, and were light (~90 pounds; I can lift it by myself easily if I get a good grip). I've had it for six months, and not one complaint. It has great picture quality, and that's all I ever wanted in a TV. So if anyone wants a simple solution, I highly recommend it. I think it's about ~1800 at some internet outlets now.

 

[imageWIS]

I have this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...lance&n=172282

It has the advanced settings menus, which allows you to change the same type of settings that a professional technician would when setting the TV up.

Jon.

 

[edmorel]

The three major big screen technologies all have their plusses and minus right now, like everything else in life. I currently own an HP (yes, as in Hewlett Packard) 1080p 65" DLP. I (nor anyone else in my family or visitors who have seen the TV) don't suffer the rainbow problem, so that is not an issue. Most high def TV's have mediocre standard definition, so if you are going to be watching a lot of regular TV, the high def will do nothing for you and you might be better off waiting. Other issues are space, money, ventilation, lighting etc. avscience.com has a great forum where they cover pretty much every TV and technology in existence. I would read as much as I could and ask questions.

The HP was the most aligned with my needs. I was watching "The SpongeBob SquarePants" movie with my son on Showtime high definition and I've never seen a clearer, sharper picture in my life. Same thing for the NCAA tourney on CBSHD. I was able to see a whitehead on one of the UCLA player's face

P.S. also, if you make the couple of thousand investment in a high def TV, spend a couple of hundred on professional calibration.

 

[mbc]

I have this: http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_KV_27FS...-20404886.html

Works well enough for me. Can't say the same for the quality of the coax in my apartment's walls, however...

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by edmorel

The three major big screen technologies all have their plusses and minus right now, like everything else in life. I currently own an HP (yes, as in Hewlett Packard) 1080p 65" DLP. I (nor anyone else in my family or visitors who have seen the TV) don't suffer the rainbow problem, so that is not an issue. Most high def TV's have mediocre standard definition, so if you are going to be watching a lot of regular TV, the high def will do nothing for you and you might be better off waiting. Other issues are space, money, ventilation, lighting etc. avscience.com has a great forum where they cover pretty much every TV and technology in existence. I would read as much as I could and ask questions.

The HP was the most aligned with my needs. I was watching "The SpongeBob SquarePants" movie with my son on Showtime high definition and I've never seen a clearer, sharper picture in my life. Same thing for the NCAA tourney on CBSHD. I was able to see a whitehead on one of the UCLA player's face

P.S. also, if you make the couple of thousand investment in a high def TV, spend a couple of hundred on professional calibration.

No one in my immediate family sees rainbows either, but alas I do. I guess my mind is not fooled by the optical illusion. When 3-chip DLP comes out, it will probably be the best rear-projection system in the world. Until then, I think SXRD has the crown.

Jon.

 

[romafan]

I have no idea what many of you guys are talking about

We have a small (14", 16"?) Sony trinitron, no cable - no complaints. It's hooked up to a VCR/DVD player to watch movies.

Can anyone tell me about the change that is supposed to occur soon regarding TV broadcasting - not sure how to term it, but something to do w/ the type of broadcast signal & a special TV you need to revceive it...