I understand that LCD TVs are starting to get the upperhand over plasma.
They are able to be produced with fewer defects, and will more readily work
with 3D images (gaming, I suppose), as two pluses. Comments?

Wayne T. Watson (Watson Adventures, Prop., Nevada City, CA)
(121.015 Deg. W, 39.262 Deg. N) GMT-8 hr std. time)
Obz Site: 39° 15' 7" N, 121° 2' 32" W, 2700 feet

"It is better to be “approximately right” rather than
“exactly wrong." -- John Tukey, Statistican
--
Web Page: <home.earthlink.net/~mtnviews

LCDs still don't match CRT or plasma as far as motion is concerned.
Looking
carefully at the various LCD TVs that were on display at the local
department store shows that while some display movement better than
others,
they all absolutely sucked when compared to CRTs. They were all pixilated
and blurry to one degree or another. On the other hand, I can't see laying
out 2K for a plasma display that is not guaranteed to last longer than 5 ~
7
years. I guess it all boils down to: You pick your poison and live with
its
consequences.

LCDs still don't match CRT or plasma as far as motion is concerned.
Looking carefully at the various LCD TVs that were on display at the
local department store shows that while some display movement better
than others, they all absolutely sucked when compared to CRTs. They
were all pixilated and blurry to one degree or another. On the other
hand, I can't see laying out 2K for a plasma display that is not
guaranteed to last longer than 5 ~ 7 years. I guess it all boils down
to: You pick your poison and live with its consequences.

I understand that LCD TVs are starting to get the upperhand over plasma.
They are able to be produced with fewer defects, and will more readily work
with 3D images (gaming, I suppose), as two pluses. Comments?
Wayne T. Watson (Watson Adventures, Prop., Nevada City, CA)
(121.015 Deg. W, 39.262 Deg. N) GMT-8 hr std. time)
Obz Site: 39° 15' 7" N, 121° 2' 32" W, 2700 feet
"It is better to be “approximately right” rather than
“exactly wrong." -- John Tukey, Statistican
Web Page: <home.earthlink.net/~mtnviews

I understand that LCD TVs are starting to get the upperhand over plasma.
They are able to be produced with fewer defects, and will more readily work
with 3D images (gaming, I suppose), as two pluses. Comments?

LCDs still don't match CRT or plasma as far as motion is concerned.
Looking
carefully at the various LCD TVs that were on display at the local
department store shows that while some display movement better than
others,
they all absolutely sucked when compared to CRTs. They were all pixilated
and blurry to one degree or another. On the other hand, I can't see laying
out 2K for a plasma display that is not guaranteed to last longer than 5 ~
7
years. I guess it all boils down to: You pick your poison and live with
its
consequences.

LCD screens use polarized filters in part of the construction of the
screen. The light from the LCD is polarized, and thus there is less
effect from the room light that is not polarized. This is a large
part of the reason why LCD screens look better in lit rooms.

CRT's are being phased out of production. Eventually, there will be
no CRT sets available.

The difference is that there is as yet no practical, economically-
competitive replacement for the internal combustion engine in
most current applications. There is for the CRT, hence the CRT
is going away.

What, in your opinion, is fundamentally wrong with profits as
a goal? Profits are driven by the market's willingness to buy a
given product at a price that exceeds the cost of manufacturing
and sales, and so are an absolutely ruthless judge of the most
effective technology for a given application. And on this score,
the CRT is losing, for a number of very good reasons.

I have no idea what you mean by "which is known that it will
never reach the speed of a light-tube"; if you're talking about
response time, the plasma display and various FED types already
equal the CRT, and the LCD is getting very, very close in the
quality of perceived motion response. The color saturation and
contrast of a state-of-the-art LCD already exceed that of the CRT
by a considerable margin.

What does "filmed via pixel" mean?

Bob M.

I don't think you will get many advocates . The TFT is poor picture,
the anim is even more poor.
Every tech will have it's place in the future. Throwing áway, a good
developed tech like CRT and starting a new one, which is known that it
will never reach the speed of a light-tube, is crap for me.

What, in your opinion, is fundamentally wrong with profits as
a goal? Profits are driven by the market's willingness to buy a
given product at a price that exceeds the cost of manufacturing
and sales, and so are an absolutely ruthless judge of the most
effective technology for a given application. And on this score,
the CRT is losing, for a number of very good reasons.

Are you mad ?

You try to dictatate that tech to me. If I say, as a customer, the CRT
is my favourite Display, then it is so. Not to mention the longevity
and repairability.

I have no idea what you mean by "which is known that it will
never reach the speed of a light-tube"; if you're talking about
response time, the plasma display and various FED types already
equal the CRT, and the LCD is getting very, very close in the
quality of perceived motion response. The color saturation and
contrast of a state-of-the-art LCD already exceed that of the CRT
by a considerable margin.

Achievable with a low-end CRT and an indoor-aerial.

What does "filmed via pixel" mean?

A crutch for low-end thinker

When it comes to seemingly still-standing text, like that on final
credits for example, it looses. The motion is too subtile for
pixel-dresher. Anti-aliasing crap and such...

Plasma with an indoor-aerial, OK, but you know Plasmas disadvantages.
I look one station sometimes the whole day. That would be a problem
with a Plasma. Burn-In...,

Sure - if YOU, as an individual customer, think that the CRT is the
best display, no one is going to try to argue with you. It's your
opinion. The problem is that there are no longer enough people
in the market who share that opinion - at least to the extent of
being unwilling to buy any other technology - to prevent the CRT
from being in decline.

What does "filmed via pixel" mean?

A crutch for low-end thinker :-)

Apparently, but that doesn't help the rest of us understand what
you mean by it.

I'm sorry; I understand that English may not be your first language,
but I have no idea what you mean when you say "the motion is
to subtile for pixel-dresher." Again, would you care to explain?

Not unless that one station is delivering only one static image, it
wouldn't be - and since plasma "burn-in" happens for essentially
the same reason as CRT burn-in (it just doesn't happen quite as
quickly), that would be an even bigger problem for the CRT.

Bob M.

reckon

On 2007-01-01, Daniel Mandic <daniel_mandic@aon.at> wrote:



I don't think you will get many advocates . The TFT is poor picture,
the anim is even more poor.
Every tech will have it's place in the future. Throwing áway, a good
developed tech like CRT and starting a new one, which is known that it
will never reach the speed of a light-tube, is crap for me.



do you reckon rear projection DLP can compete with CRT?



I haven't seen any high-resolution DLP projectors. They sure look good