| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Electronics - Misc Forum » LCD vs Plasma TV--Which Way to Go?
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bob Myers |
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jon Elson" <jmelson@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote in message
news:45A2C8C3.3030501@artsci.wustl.edu...
Quote: I haven't seen any high-resolution DLP projectors. They sure look good
at the resolution they have, but that is less than my normal LCD computer
monitor.
DLP chips (what T.I. calls the "digital micromirror device," or "DMD)
are available up to 1920 x 1080 (standard HD format); see
http://search.dlp.com/dlp_technology/dlp_technology_products.asp
The technology is also a strong contender for digital cinema use, which
would probably be at formats of approx. 2k x 1k or 4k x 2k pixels. The
basic limitation here is the physical pixel size on the device, which so far
(as I recall) is down to about 12 microns on a side.
Bob M. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mat Nieuwenhoven |
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 01:30:28 GMT, W. Watson wrote:
Quote: 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?
I've read that 120Hz LCDs look much better with moving edges than the
standard 60 Hz onces, I haven't seen them myself yet though.
Plasma's have a maximum total light output (like a CRT), which means that if
the picture is really bright in many places, it dims to avoid heating the
screen. So the advertised high contrast should probably be take as a bright
dot on a otherwise black screen, a black dot on a white screen would be very
much less. LCDs don't have this problem.
Plasma's have typically a higher power consumption than LCDs; that alone
might be sufficient reason (costs and environment) to avoid plasma's, it
would be for me.
Mat Nieuwenhoven |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| B. Peg |
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: "Mat Nieuwenhoven" wrote:
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?
I've read that 120Hz LCDs look much better with moving edges than the
standard 60 Hz onces, I haven't seen them myself yet though.
Plasma's have a maximum total light output (like a CRT), which means that
if
the picture is really bright in many places, it dims to avoid heating the
screen. So the advertised high contrast should probably be take as a
bright
dot on a otherwise black screen, a black dot on a white screen would be
very
much less. LCDs don't have this problem.
Plasma's have typically a higher power consumption than LCDs; that alone
might be sufficient reason (costs and environment) to avoid plasma's, it
would be for me.
When I was shopping 6 months ago, the plasma's were only up to around 720
lines while some DLP's were up to 1080 lines. One could see the pixels of
the plasmas quite readily and the DLP was far sharper.
The drawback was the DLP had a lower contrast ratio which meant the blacks
looked blacker on the plasma. The salesman then, said the plasmas were
still prone to image burn in and they had one in their shop where ESPN's
logo did a number on it.
What disturbed me with the DLP was some problem I had with their lamp
circuitry. It blew a lamp in a couple of weeks. Although under warranty,
it sold for $320. Several weeks later the lamp out light came on and the
set wouldn't turn on. Another bulb but still no worky. Then it took a
ballast. Still nothing and they took it away for a few months. It's back
now and they say they changed out the "Light Engine" whatever that is.
They warned me the DLP's lamp may only last for 8-24 months and I might want
to keep a "spare" on hand as it's not a usually stocked item.
B~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:57 pm |
|
|
|
|
LCD"S LAST LONGER!
jasen wrote:
Quote: 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?
Bye.
Jasen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:48 am
|
|