Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › If you were to buy a TV now, which technology would you buy into?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If you were to buy a TV now, which technology would you buy into? - Page 7

post #91 of 116
Price, size and weight is what sold me on the Sony 3-LCD...

Those 3 things aside it also happens to have a fantastic picture and not much I can complain about once you have it all tweak and ready to go.
post #92 of 116
Think about this: 2 years ago I saw a Sharp 32" LCD listed at $3000 retail, you can get a 52" Sharp LCD for that price now. That is just crazy.
post #93 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by markl View Post
Aren't we making many assumptions here about the future improvement potential of LCD and plasma? How do we know they aren't already maxed out right now?

Personally, I don't really like the way either look. If only good 'ol CRT's weren't ridiculously heavy and cumbersome above 36 inches. My 36" WEGA CRT is already ludicrously heavy, way too much for one person alone to pick up...
I can't see how LCD and plasma are getting near maxxed out. CRT had a good lifespan: 60 years! It's partly the nature of the technology that makes them able to make ever larger panels. CRT will always have the issue of needing a big tube to project an image. IMHO, the differences in image between CRT and plasma become really miniscule when you're past 5' from the TV. That's if its a well calibrated plasma. When you get close to a plasma, you will see how the blacks in the image are dithered. But this doesn't become a problem when you're watching TV at a proper distance. I'm also sure that they're still working up ways to get better greyscale with plasma.

But yeah, it is many the size and weight issue that makes me only want plasma for HDTV. big CRTs are a real pain in apartments. If I were to install a 36" HD CRT, I wouldn't be able to lift it by myself (at 250 lbs, even 2 people would have a hard time). It also would jutt so far out from the wall that it would be practically up to my coffee table.
post #94 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davesrose View Post
But yeah, it is many the size and weight issue that makes me only want plasma for HDTV. big CRTs are a real pain in apartments.
I was able to install my 65" 1080p plasma with just one friend's help. I'm not sure how anyone could want a CRT( especially since they don't come in a size anywhere close to 65") after seeing full 1080p glory on a 65" panel. It's just a different ballgame.
post #95 of 116
A 16-bit CD will always have only 16 bits. That's an inherent limitation of the Redbook CD. I'm just saying we have no idea how close or how far we are from maxing out what Plasma or LCD can do. It would be a shame (but sadly typical) if we were to replace a superior technology with an inferior one because of convenience and form factor (the way CD replaced LP and the way mp3 is replacing CD).
post #96 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by markl View Post
Aren't we making many assumptions here about the future improvement potential of LCD and plasma? How do we know they aren't already maxed out right now?

Personally, I don't really like the way either look. If only good 'ol CRT's weren't ridiculously heavy and cumbersome above 36 inches. My 36" WEGA CRT is already ludicrously heavy, way too much for one person alone to pick up...
My 32" Panasonic CRT can barely be lifted even by two people, but man is the picture nice. It was made in '95 and is still going strong, although sometimes I gotta whack it a couple times.
post #97 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by markl View Post
A 16-bit CD will always have only 16 bits. That's an inherent limitation of the Redbook CD. I'm just saying we have no idea how close or how far we are from maxing out what Plasma or LCD can do. It would be a shame (but sadly typical) if we were to replace a superior technology with an inferior one because of convenience and form factor (the way CD replaced LP and the way mp3 is replacing CD).
LP was hardly a superior format. Why that myth is perpetuated I do not know.

CRT needs to be replaced because it has far too many size limitations and simply no longer offers PQ that justifies the excessive form factor. One look at 1080p source material on a large 1080p panel makes that immediately obvious.
post #98 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by euclid View Post
how? burn-in is no longer a factor on a good plasma. the blacks are deeper and the motion is smoother, how is LCD technology better except it is more affordable in 1080P at the moment and availalbe in smaller sizes?
'cause I like LCD.
post #99 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by markl View Post
A 16-bit CD will always have only 16 bits. That's an inherent limitation of the Redbook CD. I'm just saying we have no idea how close or how far we are from maxing out what Plasma or LCD can do. It would be a shame (but sadly typical) if we were to replace a superior technology with an inferior one because of convenience and form factor (the way CD replaced LP and the way mp3 is replacing CD).
But image technology is different. Screen pixels are always getting smaller.....it's just an inherent aspect that manufacturers will find ways to make the pixels even smaller. This actually will probably be a good thing for video, as the increase in native resolution will demand even higher definition source material (right now TV makers are striving for 1080p....who knows how soon it might be when they can double that).

Audio has the potential for the same thing. SACD is better then CD, and if it weren't for DRM, might actually be getting popular now. I mean if you could digitally output SACD through your HT receiver (excluding the expensive setups), many consumers would be enthralled with true surround music. Audiophiles would be enthralled with the better quality. It's more just marketing that's making people chose iTunes music over CDs. They're playing off of inferior equipment that doesn't show the limitations of 128kps music.
post #100 of 116
http://www.brightsidetech.com/



okay....so how this works is they have an intricate array of variable brightness variable colour high quality LEDS behind the high res LCD rather than a single backlight

what you get is photorealistic contrast, and extreme brightness and darkness levels

eg. i saw a live demo, there was a short segment that was a cave spelunking video

complete pitch darkness and then one of the divers sets off a flare....its almost blinding before your eyes can adjust to the scene

they quote a contrast ratio of 200000:1

i think theyve licenced the technology to some bigname companies but im not sure which ones

very cool stuff



OLED technology seems very promising as well



BTW: hi everybody....im a lurker :P
post #101 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasmus View Post
okay....so how this works is they have an intricate array of variable brightness variable colour high quality LEDS behind the high res LCD rather than a single backlight
I like this idea..
post #102 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleestack View Post
I was able to install my 65" 1080p plasma with just one friend's help. I'm not sure how anyone could want a CRT( especially since they don't come in a size anywhere close to 65") after seeing full 1080p glory on a 65" panel. It's just a different ballgame.
I have a one year old 50" 1280x1024 Samsung plasma at home, but it's not really big enough for our viewing distance (14'+). Since digital TV is coming to Hong Kong next year, it would probably be a good idea to get a larger 1080p TV. Also, "flat screen TV" prices have come down a fair bit: my 50" was $7k a year and a half ago. Now, they're going for $5-6.5k. I was just wondering whether they made 60-65" 1080p LCDs around the $7-8k mark? I'm a HDTV convert ever since I watched high definition broadcasts of NBA and NFL games on my uncle's 1080i 42" rear projection TV

What made you go for a plasma and not an LCD?
post #103 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleestack View Post
CRT needs to be replaced because it has far too many size limitations and simply no longer offers PQ that justifies the excessive form factor. One look at 1080p source material on a large 1080p panel makes that immediately obvious.
My 34XBR960, displaying 1080i HD material, is definitely superior to my brother's 1080p 60" SXRD XBR2. Much less noise, sharper colors, way better blacks, noticeable contrast improvement. He agrees but chooses to give these up for the sheer size factor. I won't compromise until there is something clearly superior to CRT's, to my eyes.
post #104 of 116
This is an easy question to answer, as I just bought my new TV...
46" Sony 3-LCD rear projection 720p HDTV (KDF-46E2000)
IMO it's tough to beat the picture quality and feature set at this price, and the 3-LCD system seems superior to DLP to me, with no moving parts, fewer failures seen (at least @ AVS forums) and I've always had good luck w/ Sony TVs. At my viewing distance (9' or so, IIRC) SDTV looks more than decent. EDTV (DVDs) with my HK DVD-47 (with the DCDi upcoversion chip) look damn good... almost indistinguishable from HD. And of course HDTV (via Comcast HD STB) is stunning.
post #105 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1GTR View Post
My 34XBR960, displaying 1080i HD material, is definitely superior to my brother's 1080p 60" SXRD XBR2. Much less noise, sharper colors, way better blacks, noticeable contrast improvement. He agrees but chooses to give these up for the sheer size factor. I won't compromise until there is something clearly superior to CRT's, to my eyes.

That's why I don't use anything less than plasma at those sizes. IMO, the SXRD XBR2, let alone the LCD XBR2s are not comparable to the better plasma panels. I was very interested in the 52" XBR3 until I actually saw one.

It's also somewhat senseless to compare 2 TVs that are of a completely different size. You would have to adjust your viewing distance for every comparison.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › If you were to buy a TV now, which technology would you buy into?