~%90 will play these games on regular TVs. Which has better

[wco81]

Basically if people buy those cheap 800x480 plasmas, if they're lucky (in their ignorance), they might get the ones that "accept" a HDTV signal, but will scale it down, making things a little bit better, but still not being able to diplay a true HD image.

the whole HD-Ready thing will make things better, although greedy manufacturers and especially the shop assistance need to make the public aware of what's coming and what is going to be compatible with what.

Because come next year, when Sky only accepts HDMI or DVI-HDCP, there are going to be a lot of pissed off people.

There are a lot of people who buy EDTV plasmas (anything from 480p to under 720p) who insist that EDTV looks better for SD and DVDs than HDTVs and just as good with HDTV sources.

Also they sell a lot of 1024x768 plasmas and LCDs as HDTVs in the US.

Then there are 26 or 27-inch HDTVs now being sold without HDMI or DVI but at least they're under $500.

 

[London Geezer]

There are a lot of people who buy EDTV plasmas (anything from 480p to under 720p) who insist that EDTV looks better for SD and DVDs than HDTVs and just as good with HDTV sources.

For SD sources, yeah they ought to look very good.
HDTV sources, you lost the whole point of the *HD*TV source really.

Then there are 26 or 27-inch HDTVs now being sold without HDMI or DVI but at least they're under $500.

HDTVs without HDMI or DVI are still HDTVs as long as they support at least 720p/1080i.

The point is that in the UK, unless a HDTV has either HDMI or DVI with HDCP, it won't be able to show you the HD signal that Sky will offer you, or at the very least some programs - it depends on the channel.

In the US, you're lucky.

It's Europe/UK that's messy as usual.

 

[Ty]

For SD sources, yeah they ought to look very good.
HDTV sources, you lost the whole point of the *HD*TV source really.

Not necessarily. Do a comparison yourself in a showroom (yea I know you don't have one) and you may surprise yourself. I've seen the Panasonic 42" models side by side. The HD was definately sharper when compared directly against the ED version.

But when not doing a comparison the ED was still quite sharp (obviously they were both displaying the same source, a HD feed of basketball).

The ED version is also a bit brighter in specs - but I'm not sure that may make much of a difference.

In the end, resolution is but ONE factor that goes into the PQ of a display.

For corroboration of the above, check out the avs forums where you'll find many HD set owners agreeing that the ED models weren't that far off from their own.

 

[wco81]

ARen't a high percentage of TVs sold in Europe multistandard ones which can display NTSC?

For those region 1 DVDs played on those region-free DVD players?

How would that translate with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? If they do 1080p, it's suppose to be 24 or 30Hz.

 

[kyleb]

Not necessarily. Do a comparison yourself in a showroom (yea I know you don't have one) and you may surprise yourself. I've seen the Panasonic 42" models side by side. The HD was definately sharper when compared directly against the ED version.

But when not doing a comparison the ED was still quite sharp (obviously they were both displaying the same source, a HD feed of basketball).

The ED version is also a bit brighter in specs - but I'm not sure that may make much of a difference.

In the end, resolution is but ONE factor that goes into the PQ of a display.

For corroboration of the above, check out the avs forums where you'll find many HD set owners agreeing that the ED models weren't that far off from their own.

Exactly. Depending on how far you are from the screen, the law of diminishing returns kicks pretty quick. Just like a 256kbps sounds a whole lot better than a 128kbps mp3, but the difference is not nearly as noticeable going from 256kbps to 384kbps. In the same sense, the jump from running what comes to esentally 640x384 interlaced and letterboxed on a SD display to an ED display is far greater than the jump from that for an ED display to a HD one.

 

[DemoCoder]

According to the THX guidelines, you should never sit more than 4x the width of the screen away from the screen, and infact, you should sit much closer to 2x. For example, if your plasma is 40" wide (not diagonal), than you should sit 80" to 160" away (6-12 feet)

Comparing ED PDP to SD CRT isn't fair, because PDPs have alot more foot-lumens and better color saturation. Especially in situatiosn with ambient light, the CRT's contrast ratio will be blown away due to low lumen output. If you compare an EDTV PDP to an HDTV PDP, you will see the difference side by side, if you sit within THX guidelines.

 

[kyleb]

Isn't that the same thing I said aisde from the comments on fairness and guidelines?

 

[Ty]

According to the THX guidelines, you should never sit more than 4x the width of the screen away from the screen, and infact, you should sit much closer to 2x. For example, if your plasma is 40" wide (not diagonal), than you should sit 80" to 160" away (6-12 feet)

Just go here.

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html#anchor_13194

 

[Dural]

Optoma recommends 2x viewing distance for the H31 that I have and that seems about right. Right now I have it projecting a 67" wide image and I can still see pixels from ~9' away but that is to be expected, no one else seems to notice it though. I'm going to try moving the projector a little closer to make about a 57" wide image to see if I like it more as the pixels really bother me when playing games, movies, on the other hand, look great.

 

[DemoCoder]

One trick projector people do is "defocus" the image alittle bit to lessen the SDE (Screen Door Effect). SDE is usually less in DLP projectors than LCD, since DLP DMD allows light to bleed over between mirrors alittle bit, whereas LCD pixels are more sharply confined.

I have to sit about 17' from my screen. At smaller distances, SDE is noticable, but it doesn't bother me as much as a less punchy low-res image would.

 

[Dural]

Yeah, I've tried that trick and it works quite well for movies as it gives it a more film like picture. For games, however, it just doesn't do it for me and focusing it makes the pixels too noticeable. I think a smaller image will work best until the 720p dlp projectors come down in price, I'm not a big fan of LCD.

 

[wco81]

There's still a lot of R&D around LCD, isn't there? LED-backlit LCDs are due real soon now?

Still, SED and NED sounds promising.

And of course they've been talking about OLED for awhile now.

 

[Ty]

There's still a lot of R&D around LCD, isn't there? LED-backlit LCDs are due real soon now?

You should be able to buy them now actually. I believe the new Qualia line from Sony is using Lumiled's technology.

Frankly, even this is still some what disappointing as I think it eats up a ton of juice (and therefore spits out a lot of heat - more than a PDP (I think). Don't get me wrong, there are some wonderful benefits now, but I'm going to wait just a bit more to replace my new plasma.

When they move to duty cycled or strobed LEDs (a few generations away) LED backlighting will be a lot better imo.

Still, SED and NED sounds promising.

SEDs do sound very promising, but they've already pushed back the date some AND said that they are going to be "ferrari priced".

Till Samsung pushes out FED, expect SEDs to be quite expensive.

NEDs? Another interesting technology but perfecting it in the lab is only half of the battle. Still need to commercialize it.

And of course they've been talking about OLED for awhile now.

Don't hold your breath for this one.

 

[wco81]

What Toshiba said about SED is 2006 with premium pricing, 2007 with "more competitive" pricing and then 2008, they are expecting to be 30% of the flat panel market. So we can interpret that many ways.

My suspicion is that they could develop a display which costs $5 to make but if its characteristics are better than what's out in the market, they will charge a premium for it. IOW, no relation between costs and price.

Of course, you'd think with a real low manufacturing cost, there would be lower barrier to entry. There's a gold rush mentality right now so certainly a of would-be competitors.

 

[PC-Engine]

Don't hold your breath for this one.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000980044037/

 

[London Geezer]

Don't hold your breath for this one.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000980044037/

WOAH... how much?

 

[Ty]

What Toshiba said about SED is 2006 with premium pricing, 2007 with "more competitive" pricing and then 2008, they are expecting to be 30% of the flat panel market. So we can interpret that many ways.

My suspicion is that they could develop a display which costs $5 to make but if its characteristics are better than what's out in the market, they will charge a premium for it. IOW, no relation between costs and price.

Of course, you'd think with a real low manufacturing cost, there would be lower barrier to entry. There's a gold rush mentality right now so certainly a of would-be competitors.

Yes, the thought is that Toshiba is trying to ingrain the idea that SED is the best and thus costs the most. Which is why I said, "till Samsung pushes out FEDs expect SEDs to be expensive". Afaik, FEDs are based on similiar technology.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000980044037/

Interesting. Let's wait till that Display Meeting to find out, Lifetime and Uneven Wear (Blue wears out faster than other colors for OLEDs).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Where do Carbon Nanotubes fit in with all this? I thought they were supposed to reduce prices for sets to 1/10th?

 

[London Geezer]

Where do Carbon Nanotubes fit in with all this? I thought they were supposed to reduce prices for sets to 1/10th?

Manufacturing costs, perhaps.

But there will always be a premium on new technology, at least at the beginning - well, as long as the technoilogy can be called "new" really.

 

[Ty]

Where do Carbon Nanotubes fit in with all this? I thought they were supposed to reduce prices for sets to 1/10th?

That's NED - Nano Emmissive Display. I worry about parallels to LCOS but we'll see. Maybe Motorola has the stomach to see it through. In other words, don't hold your breath for this one as the others are ahead in terms of commercializing their technology at this point.