10M HDTVs sold, 15.5M by end of 2005

[PC-Engine]

Have they solved the burn-in issues with PDPs?

Nope. Any phosphor based display carries a risk of burn-in, but with a 60,000 hour half-brightness rating, it is diminished to where it shouldn't be an issue with average use.

As with any theater equipment, you should base your purchase on your specific needs. If you watch CNBC constantly, you probably don't want a PDP. If your viewing is a mix of games, movies, news, etc, the PDP should suit you perfectly.

Playing a game for many hours at a time with static HUDs on a PDP will not be a wise decision then. So what's the point of owning a PDP if you can't hook up your HD games to it?

None of you can deny that LCD's are evolving much, much faster then PLASMA, and is progressivelly catching up in things like refresh rate, black levels and support for larger sizes. Once you have both technologies with practically the same quality, there will be no room left for PLASMA. You can already find LCD display prototypes with 4ms response time, and other ones with sizes up to 82". I wouldn't give 2 years before we have such displays on the market, and unless PLASMA producers can come up with cheaper production methods, PLASMA is doomed.

Yep and don't forget the upcoming HDR technologies with LED backlighting for LCDs. I don't think PDPs can achieve 40,000:1 CR or 110% NTSC color gamut. Not to mention Sharp already has FULL HD 1920x1080 pixel resolution LCDs available for purchase.

The Sony SXRD was suppose to be out early this year wasn't it? That 70-inch rear projection job which is $10k. Was a Qualia model.

Just read that Sony is pushing into digital projection at theaters. The market leaders are TI, with their DLP-based 2k systems.

Sony is coming out with 4k models using SXRD but with a price-premium. Sony systems are expected to go upwards of $140k while the TI systems are around $100k.

So SXRD development will continue for awhile, apparently.

BTW ever heard of JVC's DLA-QX1G?

Here's something for you to chew on:

http://www.nec.com/global/features/index15/index.html

And I found this really neat.

http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0504/0101.html

 

[Ty]

Playing a game for many hours at a time with static HUDs on a PDP will not be a wise decision then. So what's the point of owning a PDP if you can't hook up your HD games to it?

The risk of burn-in depends on the brand/model of the set itself with the later gen panels having little to no burn-in even over many hours at a time. You can also reduce after image by using built-in screen wipes which many PDPs have nowadays.

Yep and don't forget the upcoming HDR technologies with LED backlighting for LCDs. I don't think PDPs can achieve 40,000:1 CR

Contrast ratios can be misleading as manufacturers do not rely on a standarized test. Personally I don't know if PDPs could ever reach something like that (CRTs don't even come close) nor if that's achieved with black crush.

or 110% NTSC color gamut.

Color reproduction has never been an issue with PDPs afaik and I don't see why the same color space with LCDs couldn't be achieved with PDPs and vice versa. But I'm not a display engineer.

Not to mention Sharp already has FULL HD 1920x1080 pixel resolution LCDs available for purchase.

Sharp has some of the best (imo) LCD panels - I mentioned the Aquos before. That said, they are more expensive than PDPs by a fair margin.

Here's something for you to chew on:

http://www.nec.com/global/features/index15/index.html

I personally can't stand RP-DLP. Uneven brightness is horrible and the vertical viewing angles are atrocious.

 

[PC-Engine]

The risk of burn-in depends on the brand/model of the set itself with the later gen panels having little to no burn-in even over many hours at a time. You can also reduce after image by using built-in screen wipes which many PDPs have nowadays.

Screen wipes are useless because you're basically intentionally burning the screen even more and thus lowering the lifespan of the PDP even faster.

Contrast ratios can be misleading as manufacturers do not rely on a standarized test. Personally I don't know if PDPs could ever reach something like that (CRTs don't even come close) nor if that's achieved with black crush.

Sure if you're talking about conventional LCDs. HDR LCDs have higher CR (higher dymanic range) by default because of the way the LED backlights work with the LCDs. We've already talked about this before for example Sunnybrook Tech's HDR LCDs at Sigraph.

Color reproduction has never been an issue with PDPs afaik and I don't see why the same color space with LCDs couldn't be achieved with PDPs and vice versa. But I'm not a display engineer.

I've only seen wide color gamut display technology on CRTs and LCDs. When used with CRTs it's less than 100%, when used with tricolor LED backlit LCDs, it's over 100%. I've never heard of any wide color gamut developments for PDPs so it's probably too difficult or too expensive.

Sharp has some of the best (imo) LCD panels - I mentioned the Aquos before. That said, they are more expensive than PDPs by a fair margin.

Sure but you have 1:1 pixel mapping for 1920x1080 HD sources so no upscaling needed.

I personally can't stand RP-DLP. Uneven brightness is horrible and the vertical viewing angles are atrocious.

That's not a RP-DLP. It's a NEC FP-DLP for industrial/cinema use. It's the one used during Spiderman 2 post production. If you had read the article you'd realize this. Anyway the point is LCDs have made major technological progress compared to PDPs.

 

[London Geezer]

Wouldn't a 40,000:1 Contrast Ratio make us kinda blind? Or very tanned? Or both?

 

[PC-Engine]

Wouldn't a 40,000:1 Contrast Ratio make us kinda blind? Or very tanned? Or both?

No it wouldn't. Just because there are 40K levels of brightness doesn't mean the highest level will blind you like the sun would.

 

[London Geezer]

Wouldn't a 40,000:1 Contrast Ratio make us kinda blind? Or very tanned? Or both?

No it wouldn't. Just because there are 40K levels of brightness doesn't mean the highest level will blind you like the sun would.

Well... Ooooh i get it... I'm so blond.
I've always correlated the CR to how bright the screen is, but it's obviously not the case... Or is it?

 

[PC-Engine]

Wouldn't a 40,000:1 Contrast Ratio make us kinda blind? Or very tanned? Or both?

No it wouldn't. Just because there are 40K levels of brightness doesn't mean the highest level will blind you like the sun would.

Well... Ooooh i get it... I'm so blond.
I've always correlated the CR to how bright the screen is, but it's obviously not the case... Or is it?

If it is, why would manufacturers give two numbers, one for CR and another for brightness?

 

[London Geezer]

If it is, why would manufacturers give two numbers, one for CR and another for brightness?

Well that's why i've always been confused.. So, next question, what exactly is the contrast ratio? Why is a 800:1 monitor better than a 400:1 one?

 

[PC-Engine]

If it is, why would manufacturers give two numbers, one for CR and another for brightness?

Well that's why i've always been confused.. So, next question, what exactly is the contrast ratio? Why is a 800:1 monitor better than a 400:1 one?

The eye can perceive much higher CRs than those numbers. CRTs have a CR of about 500 btw. Visualize a dimmer switch for a light bulb. An 8 step switch is better than a 4 step switch. An infinite step swtich is better than both.

 

[Brimstone]

Long term the future looks to be FED if they can keep the price low, which by most accounts they think they will. FED is a huge threat and I'm sure around the time they start shiping TV's, competing technologies will drop in price drastically in order to survie.

 

[London Geezer]

If it is, why would manufacturers give two numbers, one for CR and another for brightness?

Well that's why i've always been confused.. So, next question, what exactly is the contrast ratio? Why is a 800:1 monitor better than a 400:1 one?

The eye can perceive much higher CRs than those numbers. CRTs have a CR of about 500 btw. Visualize a dimmer switch for a light bulb. An 8 step switch is better than a 4 step switch. An infinite step swtich is better than both.

Right, so the CR is just "how many steps it takes to go from the darkest level to the brightest one".
I still don't see why that's so important. Examples?

 

[PC-Engine]

If it is, why would manufacturers give two numbers, one for CR and another for brightness?

Well that's why i've always been confused.. So, next question, what exactly is the contrast ratio? Why is a 800:1 monitor better than a 400:1 one?

The eye can perceive much higher CRs than those numbers. CRTs have a CR of about 500 btw. Visualize a dimmer switch for a light bulb. An 8 step switch is better than a 4 step switch. An infinite step swtich is better than both.

Right, so the CR is just "how many steps it takes to go from the darkest level to the brightest one".
I still don't see why that's so important. Examples?

It's important because we want a display to be able to approximate what we see in real life. If in real life we can see 100K levels of brightness then we'd want as much of that as possible in a display. It's the same reason why we keep increasing resolution. CR is kinda like the resolution of brightness levels. Just like color we'd want as many colors as the eye can distinguish in real life. Basically you have color, resolution, and CR/DR.

 

[London Geezer]

It's important because we want a display to be able to approximate what we see in real life. If in real life we can see 100K levels of brightness then we'd want as much of that as possible in a display. It's the same reason why we keep increasing resolution. CR is kinda like the resolution of brightness levels. Just like color we'd want as many colors as the eye can distinguish in real life. Basically you have color, resolution, and CR/DR.

Right... Get in now. Kinda.
So what happens when the CR is too low? Banding?

 

[PC-Engine]

It's important because we want a display to be able to approximate what we see in real life. If in real life we can see 100K levels of brightness then we'd want as much of that as possible in a display. It's the same reason why we keep increasing resolution. CR is kinda like the resolution of brightness levels. Just like color we'd want as many colors as the eye can distinguish in real life. Basically you have color, resolution, and CR/DR.

Right... Get in now. Kinda.
So what happens when the CR is too low? Banding?

Yes but on a greyscale instead of a color scale.

 

[London Geezer]

It's important because we want a display to be able to approximate what we see in real life. If in real life we can see 100K levels of brightness then we'd want as much of that as possible in a display. It's the same reason why we keep increasing resolution. CR is kinda like the resolution of brightness levels. Just like color we'd want as many colors as the eye can distinguish in real life. Basically you have color, resolution, and CR/DR.

Right... Get in now. Kinda.
So what happens when the CR is too low? Banding?

Yes but on a greyscale instead of a color scale.

*Trying to imagine*...

I guess there is an upper limit to CR then, right? Much like there's no point in going over 16M or 1B colours on displays.... So what's the limit for CR? (Lots of questions, i know, what can i say i'm bored)

 

[PC-Engine]

 

[London Geezer]

Real images maybe?


(Hey did u guys notice, PCEngine and I are having a "normal" conversation!? April's fool!!)

 

[PC-Engine]

Now all you need to do is add color. BTW guess which one has higher CR?

 

[London Geezer]

Now all you need to do is add color. BTW guess which one has higher CR?

...the last one...? ----------------------------------------------------------------^

did i win a goldfish!!??

 

[KnightBreed]

Playing a game for many hours at a time with static HUDs on a PDP will not be a wise decision then. So what's the point of owning a PDP if you can't hook up your HD games to it?

Um, I don't know. How about watching movies and other HD programming? Like I said, any consumer electronics purchase should be made with the specific needs of the user in mind. The half-brightness ratings are roughly on par or better than CRT technology and countless people have been playing games on CRTs for years with no ill effect. I don't know how many hours of Counter-Strike I put on my old 17" CRT before buying a LCD. The burn-in issue is blown greatly out of proportion.

Yep and don't forget the upcoming HDR technologies with LED backlighting for LCDs. I don't think PDPs can achieve 40,000:1 CR or 110% NTSC color gamut. Not to mention Sharp already has FULL HD 1920x1080 pixel resolution LCDs available for purchase.

LED backlighting is the one saving grace for LCD technology and it has serious potential to meet and surpass plasma picture quality. The big question is whether or not it can be done cost effectively. Installing enough LEDs to properly control brightness and contrast ratio will be expensive.