Okay, its over, LCD won, everybody else go home

[Carl Reid]

BUT LCD is the future, everything else will become niche, if it surrives at all.

So far I've liked this thread and agree with a number of your points... LCD is the current king and plasma will likely die... BUT I have to disagree with your vew that LCD is the future....

You are using things like Laserdisc vs DVD to justify the dominance of LCD.... but there is no relationship betweent the two...

Laserdisc vs DVD, SACD vs DVD-Audio & HD-DVD vs BlueRay are all format wars... which is a totally different issue from which kind of TV will be dominant....

Put it this way: If a consumer is an early adopter and buys an SACD player and a number of SACDs, then he will likely stick to that format because he has already invested money in a collection of SACDs.... So he is not likely to totally ditch his SACD player and get a dedicated DVD-Audio player instead (unless he wants to have to purchase his entire SACD collection all over again on DVD-A discs).... This same thing applies to DVD, Laserdisc, HD-DVD, BlueRay and even traditional redbook CDs....

LCD TV on the other hand is not linked to any specific format.... hence if I already own an LCD TV say in my bedroom, there is no format compatibility issues if I choose to buy a DLP/Plasma/CRT for the Living Room....

LCD is dominant now because it offers most of what the mass market wants for their money.... But if a new TV comes out next year that does everything better (and doesn't require some fancy new connections instead of the standard Component, S-video and HDMI on the current crop of TVs) then it will easily dominate the market and send LCD to the graveyard....

Simply put: Unlike the format wars, there is nothing to tie a consumer to a particular type of TV....

[Dusty Chalk]

...why buy [CRT] when a LCD is just as cheap?

Because 'cheap' is not my criteria; 'quality of picture' is.

[musicman1999]

Dusty
Thank you for saying what needed saying.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

Dusty
Thank you for saying what needed saying.

bill

That goes DOUBLE for me too!

[pixelthis]

Because 'cheap' is not my criteria; 'quality of picture' is.

Thats not the point, the point is that or people who cant tell the difference cheap will do fine, and their dollars will vastly outnumber yours.
Capitalism is the only true democracy, people vote with their money,
making a CRT is expensive, soon it wont be cost effective to keep making them, they are already being squeezed off the shelves,
mostly , except for a few models, they are ALREADY gone.
Even the low end 20 in market is disapearing, 20in lcds are around 166$ these days.
Its not our job to hang onto a dying display format whose fate is sealed, better to spend our energies improving what will be out there
As for people not being tied to a certain type of tv, thats not true
You can listen to music on either a CD or a turntable, but most music isnt even pressed on records anymore, so what choice do you have?
When LCD and maybe a few niche type dlp or lcos are all thats left,
how will you buy a crt when they wont even be making them?
AND just like todays generation raised on red book audio, and later mp3s, a generation is coming that wont have much patience with the inconvience and softness of CRT just for "filmlike" quality a few
videophiles claim.
I have seen this all of my life , first in audio then video, quality fanatics who think quality is enough, all the while ignoring whats going on.
You can handmake niche audio gear, but try to "handcraft"
a 30in CRT!

[recoveryone]

I see that your argument has changed and again no one here is in dispute that the flat panel display is the future. But for you to claim that LCD has a better PQ than CRT and that is the reason that CRT is dying is way off the mark. Yes one day all of us CRT die hards will be force into the other system from lack of available of CRT and their abilty to connect to the newer technology, but then we will talk about how much we miss the better PQ (unless something with better PQ comes out). But please don't sit their and state that LCD is the better display and that is the reason for the change in the market. IMHO I feel that many of us CRT fans will shift over to a projector setup once the CRT dies off since a projector is about the next closes thing to CRT level of PQ.

[GMichael]

I see that your argument has changed and again no one here is in dispute that the flat panel display is the future. But for you to claim that LCD has a better PQ than CRT and that is the reason that CRT is dying is way off the mark. Yes one day all of us CRT die hards will be force into the other system from lack of available of CRT and their abilty to connect to the newer technology, but then we will talk about how much we miss the better PQ (unless something with better PQ comes out). But please don't sit their and state that LCD is the better display and that is the reason for the change in the market. IMHO I feel that many of us CRT fans will shift over to a projector setup once the CRT dies off since a projector is about the next closes thing to CRT level of PQ.

I went the way of the projector. It has some draw backs but I always liked the room darker for TV anyhow. IMO plazma has a better PQ than projectors, but again, we're talking about another type that on the way out.
I love my projectors and I will never go back, unless something new comes along.

[Dusty Chalk]

Its not our job to hang onto a dying display format whose fate is sealed...

Just like vinyl's fate was sealed? You keep telling yourself that.

LCD has not won, not as long as I still have a voice. They need to either improve the hell out of it, or come up with something better.

Maybe we should go back to laserdisc or film.

[powerlord]

When I went shopping for my set I had a budget and a size limit.Nothing over 46in. and not more than 2 grand.I demo'd at BB and CC.I tested plasma's,LCD's,and DLP's and I picked the DLP,it's picture in HD is unrivaled IMO,the LCD hurt my eyes and the Plasma's were a bit too mellow IMO,and I got my my DLP quite a bit cheaper with a full 3 year in home warranty.I will never keep a piece of electronics over 2 years,and when I sell my set,another DLP will take it's place,maybe a larger one this time.

[spacefunk54]

Forget it mate!

Just bought my new HDTV and i can guarantee LCD is now at the bottom of my list.
Looked at everything on the market as it took a while to get the cash together, and to my eyes LCD was absolutely rubbish PQ for everything i looked at!

Dont get me wrong, I was saving up for a sony W2000, (considered the best LCD on the market at present) but even that looked rubbish, even with HD content.

Plasma was a significant improvement, but still had a few issues i could not live with.

The only way to go for me was the sony 1080p SXRD, which as stated before, once calibrated, absolutely wiped the floor with the best LCD's or plasma's, at twice the price.

If i had the money I would have got a 1080p front projector, but at £1000 including glass AV unit the 55" SXRD was a quality choice, (and it fits nice in the front room).

I cannot recommend this TV enough. It is simply superb and would never even consider a LCD after viewing this. Plus its miles cheaper than a 1080p LCD (look it up pixel! You will be surprised at your own lack of knowledge and consumer savvy! FOOL to say LCD is best. I think most cinema buffs would agree.

Anyway, like i said before, WRONG! LCD will be gone in a few years, In the meantime enjoy your blocky, pixelated, motion blurred rubbish, because i for one wont have to put up with a technology that doesnt work with a screen size over 32"

[DEVO]

If I wanted to wall mount a tv, Plasma is still my choice. It just looks the closes to a CRT. The black level, glossy picture, smooth video motion, etc. LCD has no debth of field to it. The contrast levels they advertise is just, well overrated.
If all I had was a room w/ windows all over the place, glare was going to be a problem, I would probably go to an SXRD by Sony.
Last option is if I was in that same bright room and if I was to wall mount...well then I would spare no expense and wall mound a 46" Sammy for daytime viewing, and put up a drop down screen w/ a good front projector...LCD's just do not look good yet...
I gotta run...my plasma is about 1/4 of a tank empty, so I'm going to take it to the gas station and fill it

[hermanv]

So what do we all want in a TV today:

1920 x 1080 Individual pixels.
Pure as possible red, blue and green sources.
High contrast.
No backlight, no lenses, no mirrors.
Thin.
Power efficient (environmentally friendly).

OLED promises all of this, the first models have been displayed at CES, nothing on sale today. A 27" OLED set was less than 1/2" thick.

[GMichael]

So what do we all want in a TV today:

1920 x 1080 Individual pixels.
Pure as possible red, blue and green sources.
High contrast.
No backlight, no lenses, no mirrors.
Thin.
Power efficient (environmentally friendly).

OLED promises all of this, the first models have been displayed at CES, nothing on sale today. A 27" OLED set was less than 1/2" thick.

27"? You're kidding right? Please add big to your list. No, make that BIG! 60" and up please. Something around 92" inch is ok but 120" is better.

[hermanv]

It was a demo of a technology, of course they know that big is needed. As the sets improve I find I want bigger evey time.

[spf]

It was a demo of a technology, of course they know that big is needed. As the sets improve I find I want bigger evey time.

Yeah, the OLED tech is very prevalent in cell phones and car stereos right now and the PQ and detail is quite good for that tiny size.

[edtyct]

The problem with OLED is that the organic compound used to create the light has a relatively short life span--as short as 1/12 of the lamps currently used in most rear-projection TVs. Sony seems to think that the problem will be solved by 2008. Let's see.

[Dusty Chalk]

1920 x 1080 Individual pixels.
Pure as possible red, blue and green sources.
High contrast.
No backlight, no lenses, no mirrors.
Thin.
Power efficient (environmentally friendly).

The ability to roll it up and take it with me anywhere
Cheap

I know OLED will actually do the first one, the second one almost always happens eventually with any new technology.

[pixelthis]

This "soft filmlike quality you speak of isnt "filmlike" at all, back in the
day we called it lack of resolution.
Most crts are interlaced, when theres' motion theres at best 600 lines of rez on the thing.
AND LCD hurt my eyes too, just like EVERY set I ever bought with the brightness set to "torch" mode, I turned it down to half, and the backlight down to 70 and the results were really nice.
AND theres nothing "soft" about film, really, even the prototypes that hit 2,000p have a hard time competing with film, you're just mistaking the grain in film with a crts natural deficencies.
And after about five years a CRT has gotten to the point that its not really usefull for quality display, which is what we're talking about, my brothers panny 19 in lasted 15 years and was passed around quite a bit, but you wouldnt want to watch it.
I guess my main point is that LCD is really nice for a young format,
with improvements it will really shine, although the picture is quite good now, and has certain advantages that will also make it a comercial
success.
As for the guy who got a "great price" on a dlp, lets see how "great" that is after your 2 year sell point, when it needs a 300 buck replacement bulb, your little color wheel is really getting on your nerves (along with color smear) and NOBODY wants to buy it.
Maybe you can use it for a planter

[powerlord]

This "soft filmlike quality you speak of isnt "filmlike" at all, back in the
day we called it lack of resolution.
Most crts are interlaced, when theres' motion theres at best 600 lines of rez on the thing.
AND LCD hurt my eyes too, just like EVERY set I ever bought with the brightness set to "torch" mode, I turned it down to half, and the backlight down to 70 and the results were really nice.
AND theres nothing "soft" about film, really, even the prototypes that hit 2,000p have a hard time competing with film, you're just mistaking the grain in film with a crts natural deficencies.
And after about five years a CRT has gotten to the point that its not really usefull for quality display, which is what we're talking about, my brothers panny 19 in lasted 15 years and was passed around quite a bit, but you wouldnt want to watch it.
I guess my main point is that LCD is really nice for a young format,
with improvements it will really shine, although the picture is quite good now, and has certain advantages that will also make it a comercial
success.
As for the guy who got a "great price" on a dlp, lets see how "great" that is after your 2 year sell point, when it needs a 300 buck replacement bulb, your little color wheel is really getting on your nerves (along with color smear) and NOBODY wants to buy it.
Maybe you can use it for a planter

Or, I could just have it serviced under the full 3 year warranty I bought and purchase an extended warranty,then we have a good ten year set.IMO,lcd is great for laptops.And nothing keeps good resale value these days,not even your LCD,your chasing ghosts if you think anything electronic will hold it's value after a year.

[pixelthis]

True enough, but I think DLP will drop more than most

[hermanv]

Interesting thread. There have been some exagerations.

1. Film quality: I have seen 70mm film on a 100 foot screen (1376" diagonal screen) no TV technology I've seen can touch this for resolution.

2. Flicker: Film flickers a lot, it is very irritating when they pan, HDTV has improved on this and will do more so in the future.

3. Color purity: Film is pretty good, but no technology where a white light is shown through a colored filter will achieve the purity of lasers or LED. CRT had phosphors whose color spectrum was fairly narrow, LCD, DLP and LCoS all shine a white light through a color filter, I believe the lack of truly pure colors will eventually doom all these technologies.

4. Life: All the newer technologies have life issues. TI claims they have never seen a DLP mirror fail due to life. However light bulbs and spinning color wheels will fail. Plasma has some issues with life, end of life is defined as 50% of new brightness, no specification sheets for plasma mention how long that might be, estimates range as low as 5,000 hours and as high as 50,000 hours. Plasmas also have a dead pixel issues. LCDs get slower, dimmer and color balance changes with age and they also get dead pixels. CRTs have burn in and filament failures. A DLP with an LED light source has a real chance, as does OLED if they fix the failure mechanism. I don't mean extend it, I mean fix it so that life is long enough to be considered undetermined like most other electronics.

Hanging it on a wall is nice, but not really a requirement. I don't begin to understand why they put speakers and an audio section in a $10,000 plasma, the owner's not gonna have surround sound? Just as true for most of the large screen technologies, 3" oval speakers don't do the job.

Anyway, nice thread.

[pixelthis]

Like I said, nothing will beat film.
So comparing a crt to film is inaccurate and a totally subjective statement at best.
In the early days of HDTV my friends would ask where they could see a demo of the new tech.
I told em to go to a movie
The human brain was a primary componet of NTSC, it filled in a lot of gaps. Once I rented a copy of a movie on VHS because they were out of the DVD, and I couldnt beleive how bad it looked, this was what I had watched for years
And you say they oughta improve LCD? Check out the new 1080p sonys direct view at your local store, they are the new gold standard.
I'm just waiting for my title loan to go through (best picture I've EVER
seen)

[PeruvianSkies]

Interesting thread. There have been some exagerations.

1. Film quality: I have seen 70mm film on a 100 foot screen (1376" diagonal screen) no TV technology I've seen can touch this for resolution.

Nor will it ever. Man ...70mm. I wish it were still used. Last film I saw in true 70mm was Kenneth Branaghs HAMLET, which was stunning to say the least. Ahhhh. I've managed to see these other great films in 70mm...

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (re-release restored print)
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (in the year 2001 no less!!!)
T2 (70mm blow-up prints)
THE LION KING (70mm IMAX blow up prints)
Jacques Tati's PLATYIME (one of the few comedies in 70mm)
MY FAIR LADY
TRON (this was actually shot in VistaVision and 70mm...the computer graphics were in Vistavision because of the clean negative that allows you to integrate effects and the live action sequences were in 70mm).

[pixelthis]

Amen to that.
I posted some things on here to stir debate, the only way you really learn something,
AND I have been listening instead of just running my mouth, very interesting responses,
thanks to all who posted

[DEVO]

I'm not impressed so far w/ Samsung's newest LED DLP. Not very bright...Compared to the older models which have the existing light engine, it didn't have as good of a picture.

I would like to see what Mitsubishi is going to do w/ their new DLP and lasers. Anyone see at a show or somewhere?

Just kinda curious...