About all the new tech that is coming in the near future. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 15 Old 08-04-2013, 06:50 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
jrodefeld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The immediate future of home theater technology seems to be centered around 4k resolution and OLED. Plasma seems to be in the process of being more or less discontinued while LCD based tech will remain as the cheaper alternative until OLED becomes affordable. I am a bit concerned about the priorities that the industry seems to have regarding how to proceed and improve tv technology.

About 4k:

To me, it seems to be extremely premature to be releasing 4k displays in 2013. In the first place, there is no content to speak of to view on a 4k television. It will take years for a new format to be introduced (new generation of blu ray?) to hold 4k video releases and satellite and cable companies cannot even send 1080p video over their platforms. Even the 1080i video is heavily compressed (TOO heavily). And do we really want to rely on streaming 4k video? What a joke. Who would prefer to view low bitrate, compressed streaming 4k video over a high bitrate 1080p Blu Ray?

And who really benefits from an increase in resolution at this time? It seems to me that most people would not even be able to perceive the increase in resolution unless they sat 2 feet from their tv. Displays would have to be 80" or larger for the benefits to be obvious. The obvious candidate for 4k then, would be Front Projector owners. But for most people who buy 50 to 60 inch televisions? No signficant improvement.

Now, eventually 4k will take over and all displays will be made at 4k resolution, even at 50 inches. And eventually this makes sense. But at present, why is the industry not pushing to improve black level performance of televisions? Why not work to improve viewing angles, use higher quality components, increase the color from 8 bits to 10 or 12? Why not work to reduce compression on satellite broadcast HD? There are SO many things that would make a much larger and more immediate effect on the viewing experience than increasing the resolution of the display.

I wouldn't be bothered about 4k being pushed if more emphasis was placed on improving tv tech in other areas that would have a bigger effect on the viewing experience.



About OLED:

Well, it appears that finally large screen (relatively speaking) displays will be made available this year using OLED tech. The problem of course, is that this is the first generation of a new technology and will cost more than $15000. If everything that we read is true, it will be a long time until OLED can become affordable. Black levels will no doubt be great, but a lot of other factors are yet to be determined regarding how reliable these first displays are, and how accurate the colors are and so forth. Basically for the average person, it will be years before we can buy an affordable OLED display.

From my perspective, it seems like plasma is being abandoned for inferior lcd technology in the short term and OLED will be a future technology that needs to be refined and the price point needs to come down.

I don't understand the priorities of these manufacturers. Why is plasma being abandoned? Pioneer proved that zero black levels could be achieved in a plasma panel (the extreme contrast prototype). That was what they were working towards. I own an 8th generation 5010fd and a 9.5gen KRP-500m. To see the difference between these two panels shows just how rapidly Pioneer was improving their technology towards the goal of zero black. They correctly identified black levels and contrast ratios as being one of the most important attributes to picture quality (maybe THE most important) and set on a mission to achieve the lofty goal of zero black levels as well as bright whites. They nearly achieve this and certainly would have if they hadn't gotten out of the business.

They showed what could be achieved with current technology.

Since then, Panasonic has been far less ambitious. They have been content to slowly, year after year, approach what Pioneer accomplished way back in 2008. They are not trying to achieve zero blacks or surpass the KRP-500m.

The fatal flaw with Pioneer's Kuro seems to be not that they were producing a superior, expensive display that appeals to a niche audience of videophiles but that they were ONLY producing superior, expensive displays that appealed to a niche audience of videophiles. They put all their eggs in one basket and tried to compete against companies that sold mostly cheap affordable displays and had a few more expensive displays that appealed to enthusiasts.

So I see no reason why a company like Panasonic couldn't have a line of plasma screens that followed through on the promise of the Kuro and produced zero black levels while simultaneously being bright (45-60 ftL in Day mode). It would be expensive but even if it cost $8000, it would still be half of what an OLED display cost! If such a display was produced, I don't seen why anyone in their right mind would want to spend more for an untested new technology when they can get similar performance using a reliable, "perfected" technology like plasma.


Basically, I find it a little frustrating that I might keep my KRP-500m for another 3 to 6 years with no flat panel display being introduced (at less than $10000) that betters it in picture quality. I do like the picture of the 500m, but I would like larger screen (70" sounds nice) and some improvements based on the progression of technology since 2008.

I just find it hard to accept that for most of the next decade we will have only LCD technology with inferior black levels, color issues, viewing angle restrictions and so forth as we wait for OLED to become affordable. But some of these will have 4k resolution! It just seems stupid to be pushing an increase in resolution when we should instead be focusing on black levels, contrast, improved processing and maybe increased color bit depth (reducing the need for dithering in plasma, for example).

Does anyone feel the same way?
jrodefeld is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 15 Old 08-05-2013, 06:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post

To me, it seems to be extremely premature to be releasing 4k displays in 2013. In the first place, there is no content to speak of to view on a 4k television. It will take years for a new format to be introduced (new generation of blu ray?) to hold 4k video releases and satellite and cable companies cannot even send 1080p video over their platforms. Even the 1080i video is heavily compressed (TOO heavily). And do we really want to rely on streaming 4k video? What a joke. Who would prefer to view low bitrate, compressed streaming 4k video over a high bitrate 1080p Blu Ray?
Anyone that does photography work, or works with video has been wanting 4K (or better) displays for a long time. For that matter, a lot of people working on a PC have been complaining about how progress halted more than five years ago, when display manufacturers all decided that 1080p was enough for monitors. We had 1600x1200 in the '90s, and were then stuck with 1080p for years. The only displays that have made any progress in the last five years have been mobile devices, where we now have tablets with more resolution than the average computer monitor.

Anything you can do on a PC today, you can do in 4K, and it's better in 4K, whether that's using the display as a monitor, or using it for gaming. There's even 4K native video content available on sites like YouTube and Vimeo. Traditional distribution methods are falling behind.
If all you care about is broadcast television, then I can see why you might think 4K is worthless though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post

It seems to me that most people would not even be able to perceive the increase in resolution unless they sat 2 feet from their tv. Displays would have to be 80" or larger for the benefits to be obvious.
These claims are greatly exaggerated by people who want to remain content with their 1080p displays and stay in the past. The same thing happened when 1080p came along and everyone was saying that you would need a 60" or larger display to see the difference between it and a 720p. 4K is noticeable at distances far larger than these people claim, and the Carlton Bale charts these people love to quote are completely wrong - the distances on them should be doubled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post

But at present, why is the industry not pushing to improve black level performance of televisions?
This has been improving year-on-year, and we now have cheap Panasonic plasmas that have black levels equal to or better than the best Kuros Pioneer ever sold. LCDs had managed to achieve even better contrast ratios years ago with full array local dimming backlights, but the market has clearly shown that they care more about cheap prices than high quality images.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post

increase the color from 8 bits to 10 or 12?
If you increase the bit-depth, you have to replace every single playback device to something that supports it. Hopefully 4K will at least see a move to 10-bit encoding. It's actually more efficient to be using higher bit-depths than stick to 8-bit for video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post

Why not work to reduce compression on satellite broadcast HD?
That's a bandwidth issue and is up to the providers. You have to cut down the number of channels to increase quality, and they care more about quantity than quality. But traditional broadcast is a thing of the past. Online services now offer equal or better video quality, for on-demand content, rather than living by a broadcaster's schedule. Maybe it's an American thing to actually care about broadcast television, because I never see anyone here talking about broadcast any more - everyone cut the cord years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post

From my perspective, it seems like plasma is being abandoned for inferior lcd technology in the short term and OLED will be a future technology that needs to be refined and the price point needs to come down.
I don't understand the priorities of these manufacturers. Why is plasma being abandoned?
Because consumers aren't buying plasma, and the displays have significant drawbacks. People on forums like this might be happy sitting in a dark room marveling at how good their flickery plasma display is, but most people don't sit in the dark to watch TV, and contrast ratio/viewing angle is not an issue for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post

Pioneer proved that zero black levels could be achieved in a plasma panel (the extreme contrast prototype). That was what they were working towards. I own an 8th generation 5010fd and a 9.5gen KRP-500m. To see the difference between these two panels shows just how rapidly Pioneer was improving their technology towards the goal of zero black.
The 8G Pioneer panels were not impressive at all - the only thing impressive about them was that Pioneer had finally moved away from sub-1000:1 contrast panels in comparison to Panasonic. People seem to forget that they were far behind Panasonic for years. The extreme contrast prototype was nowhere near ready to go into production - that is not what a Pioneer 10G panel would have been - you were looking at an 11G or 12G panel at the earliest. And the only thing the Kuros did really well, was black level. They have been bettered in just about every other way by modern displays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post

maybe increased color bit depth (reducing the need for dithering in plasma, for example).
The limited bit-depth of Plasma displays is due to how they work - it is nothing to do with the source - Plasmas cannot even display an 8-bit image without dithering it to hell. You would likely not see any difference moving to 10-bit or 12-bit source content with them. LCD and OLED are where you will see the improvements, as they are actually capable of true 8-bit and 10-bit gradation.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #3 of 15 Old 08-05-2013, 10:16 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

And the only thing the Kuros did really well, was black level. They have been bettered in just about every other way by modern displays.
And it should be noted this is a minority opinion by those who have owned one.

Also, the best Kuros ever sold (the 101FD and the 500M as owned by the OP, with a 0.0005 fL from the factory) have not been equaled in black level. However, they do have an Achilles heel in that a significant number of them have acquired a red tint over time. This still doesn't make the marvel as doorstop-worthy as Chrono loves to imply.
Quote:
These claims are greatly exaggerated by people who want to remain content with their 1080p displays and stay in the past. The same thing happened when 1080p came along and everyone was saying that you would need a 60" or larger display to see the difference between it and a 720p. 4K is noticeable at distances far larger than these people claim, and the Carlton Bale charts these people love to quote are completely wrong - the distances on them should be doubled.
Doubling those distances sounds more arbitrary than Carlton's chart, and the capability to detect improvements in resolution of moving images may very well differ to a degree in comparison to perception of still images, but based on the number of impressions I've seen thus far, it appears they are highly dependent on visual acuity.
Quote:
Because consumers aren't buying plasma, and the displays have significant drawbacks. People on forums like this might be happy sitting in a dark room marveling at how good their flickery plasma display is, but most people don't sit in the dark to watch TV, and contrast ratio/viewing angle is not an issue for them.
Yes, plasma is the only display tech with drawbacks, and the flicker on my new ZT60 is so distracting, it's a wonder I can sit through any content without being distracted by it (for the record, I noticed some very minimal flickering in the occasional bright scene at the onset of ownership but that has since subsided after 400 hours of use).rolleyes.gif
vinnie97 is offline  
post #4 of 15 Old 08-05-2013, 10:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post

About 4k:

To me, it seems to be extremely premature to be releasing 4k displays in 2013. In the first place, there is no content to speak of to view on a 4k television.
The "chicken and egg" situation. Who starts first?
Why should display manufacturers make 4K displays if nobody shoots 4K content?

If there are no way to display 4K then there are no incentive to create 4K content.
People have been shooting 4K motion content for about five years now with no way to display it in full resolution except for some cinemas.

About time 4K displays arrived so content makers can use affordable 4K displays when creating their content and an incentive to create 4K because there will be somewhere to sell and distribute 4K.

It is the display manufacturers that have been slow because they where diverted by 3D.
Had they been smart and made 4K displays first and then 3D, there would have been a better chance of 3D becoming a success.
Quote:
It will take years for a new format to be introduced (new generation of blu ray?) to hold 4k video releases and satellite and cable companies cannot even send 1080p video over their platforms. Even the 1080i video is heavily compressed (TOO heavily). And do we really want to rely on streaming 4k video? What a joke. Who would prefer to view low bitrate, compressed streaming 4k video over a high bitrate 1080p Blu Ray?

1#; Compression and bitrates for TV transmissions are all about cost. About how many channels can fit on one transponder.
2#; 2K~HD was always a too low capture resolution to start with. Compress it and it falls apart. 4K camera capture can be compressed much heavier than 2K and still retain its quality because it has sufficient resolution to start with.
Quote:
And who really benefits from an increase in resolution at this time? It seems to me that most people would not even be able to perceive the increase in resolution unless they sat 2 feet from their tv. Displays would have to be 80" or larger for the benefits to be obvious. The obvious candidate for 4k then, would be Front Projector owners. But for most people who buy 50 to 60 inch televisions? No signficant improvement.

With 4K, people will get the real HD quality they thought they should get back in the day.
Don't listen to all the seating distance nonsense. Watching moving images on a TV has nothing to do with watching pixels dancing on the screen.

The most important part of the 4K quality is happening at the capture stage where details (better understood as surface texture of objects) has enough resolution to be reproduced in sufficient quality.
As long as the capture has enough resolution, preferably much higher than 4K and oversampled to 4K for the end product, and nobody messes up the content in the process from camera to display, 4K should give you an improved quality experience from all normal seating distances.

At least if you are capable of seeing image quality improvements. Not everybody even care. For them a picture is a picture regardless how bad it is.
Quote:
Now, eventually 4k will take over and all displays will be made at 4k resolution, even at 50 inches. And eventually this makes sense. But at present, why is the industry not pushing to improve black level performance of televisions? Why not work to improve viewing angles, use higher quality components, increase the color from 8 bits to 10 or 12? Why not work to reduce compression on satellite broadcast HD? There are SO many things that would make a much larger and more immediate effect on the viewing experience than increasing the resolution of the display.

I wouldn't be bothered about 4k being pushed if more emphasis was placed on improving tv tech in other areas that would have a bigger effect on the viewing experience.

Fact is that displays, and specially projectors, are capable of reproducing stunning quality that exceeds what you mostly see.
I am sure you have seen content on your display where you have thought; "wow, this is fantastic".
That's how good your display is.

The fault of this doesn't happen often enough lies on the authoring side of the content sent to you display. One would think that the peole and companies producing content does this to the hoghest possible quality. But that is not so, proved by so many sub-par quality BDs that are released.
Another part is the aforementioned low resolution.

4K is the cheapest way to increase the quality.

Doesn't mean that all 4K will be fantastic. The same people will mess up the authoring, but now they have less chance of doing that with 4K.
Beware of a lot of content that will get the 4K Tag, like the Sony "mastered in 4K", which is mostly up-converted material.
coolscan is online now  
post #5 of 15 Old 08-05-2013, 12:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

And it should be noted this is a minority opinion by those who have owned one.
Also, the best Kuros ever sold (the 101FD and the 500M as owned by the OP, with a 0.0005 fL from the factory) have not been equaled in black level. However, they do have an Achilles heel in that a significant number of them have acquired a red tint over time. This still doesn't make the marvel as doorstop-worthy as Chrono loves to imply.
I did not imply that the Kuros are "doorstop-worthy" at all. But every aspect of image quality from the Kuros has been matched or bettered by newer displays - even though Kuro owners seem to completely ignore that fact when continually lamenting how there have been "no improvements in display technology since 2008" which is completely wrong. It could be argued that the new Panasonics are better than the Kuros, at much lower prices - though they still have all the image quality trade-offs inherent to plasma displays.

And if the Kuros are so great, why is it that every few weeks there's a new topic from Kuro owners looking for something better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Doubling those distances sounds more arbitrary than Carlton's chart, and the capability to detect improvements in resolution of moving images may very well differ to a degree in comparison to perception of still images, but based on the number of impressions I've seen thus far, it appears they are highly dependent on visual acuity.
Carlton Bale's chart is for the distance required for someone with 20/20 vision to resolve a single pixel - ideally you cannot resolve a single pixel on any display. There are a number of studies which have shown that to fool the eye into believing an image is real, you need a display which has effectively double the resolution of the eye - which can also be achieved by viewing the display at twice the distance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Yes, plasma is the only display tech with drawbacks, and the flicker on my new ZT60 is so distracting, it's a wonder I can sit through any content without being distracted by it (for the record, I noticed some very minimal flickering in the occasional bright scene at the onset of ownership but that has since subsided after 400 hours of use).rolleyes.gif
General consumer opinion is that plasmas are dim, highly reflective, and flicker - and you can't blame people for having that impression after viewing them in stores, or a typical home environment. (which is not a blacked-out room) LCDs look far better in most people's homes and regular viewing conditions. Whatever your opinion is on the quality of plasma or lcd, the market has spoken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

People have been shooting 4K motion content for about five years now with no way to display it in full resolution except for some cinemas.
If I recall correctly, 35mm film has a resolution of about 4K. (it's actually slightly less, I think, but more than 1080p)
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #6 of 15 Old 08-05-2013, 12:18 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
Sorry if I was mistaken regarding your implication. I apparently mistook your tone as dismissive. wink.gif Do you happen to have any links to those resolution trickery studies?

Also, LCD is simply more eye-catching in showrooms, and I doubt flicker detection is a common complaint among the masses as to why they passed on plasma.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #7 of 15 Old 08-05-2013, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,921
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 

Also, the best Kuros ever sold (the 101FD and the 500M as owned by the OP, with a 0.0005 fL from the factory) have not been equaled in black level.

That was then, this is now ..
http://hdguru.com/lg-55ea9800-oled-hdtv-reviewed/#more-11091
8mile13 is offline  
post #8 of 15 Old 08-05-2013, 01:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

If I recall correctly, 35mm film has a resolution of about 4K. (it's actually slightly less, I think, but more than 1080p)

Around 2-3K. Advantage is to scan 35mm at higher resolution than 4K and over sample in stead of up-converting.
4K digital is more equal to 5perf. 70mm.

Put some links about 35mm cine film resolution in this post; http://www.avsforum.com/t/1483393/true-4k-blu-ray-why-i-will-mostly-skip-if-released#post_23596912

.
coolscan is online now  
post #9 of 15 Old 08-05-2013, 02:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Around 2-3K. Advantage is to scan 35mm at higher resolution than 4K and over sample in stead of up-converting.
4K digital is more equal to 5perf. 70mm.
Well the point is that 1080p is not enough resolution to capture everything in 35mm film - so that still means that the majority of the film back catalog can still benefit from 4K.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #10 of 15 Old 08-05-2013, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Well the point is that 1080p is not enough resolution to capture everything in 35mm film - so that still means that the majority of the film back catalog can still benefit from 4K.

Yes, provided it is done right.
To rescan distribution prints doesn't give close to the resolution you can eke out of the original camera negatives.

Questions will be; Do the negatives even exist? Will any studio rescan original camera negatives and resemble the whole movie?

The answers to both will be; In most cases not.

So quality of old movies will depend a lot of how the resurrection of the movie for 4K will happen.

The reports about the quality of the 10 "mastered in 4K" movies that are on the Sony servers doesn't exactly raise ones optimism on this account, even for the more recent movies.
coolscan is online now  
post #11 of 15 Old 08-05-2013, 03:26 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

That was then, this is now ..
http://hdguru.com/lg-55ea9800-oled-hdtv-reviewed/#more-11091
I wasn't referring to OLED, but I suspect you probably knew that (still, how sensitive is the Konica Minolta LS? They only gave an ftL reading to the 100th decimal place). If that's not the case, you must take me for an idiot. mad.gif
vinnie97 is offline  
post #12 of 15 Old 08-05-2013, 03:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Coolscan:; I think that your point #1 is 100% correct 100% of the time. Everything eventually reverts back to cost. Whether it's cost of manufacturing or profits.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #13 of 15 Old 08-06-2013, 04:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,921
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 
I wasn't referring to OLED, but I suspect you probably knew that (still, how sensitive is the Konica Minolta LS? They only gave an ftL reading to the 100th decimal place). If that's not the case, you must take me for an idiot. mad.gif
That was just a reflex smile.gif
8mile13 is offline  
post #14 of 15 Old 08-06-2013, 12:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
spyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 41
The release of the OLED TV is great news. Now, I would have to wait until it is a mature technology available in 70 and 80 inch for under $10,000. Let's say under $5K for a 70 and $10K for the 80" OLED. All the new technology should help with the price of 70 and 80 inch LCD's. Those of you who follow the 80 inch Sharp, how long before it is readily available for under $3K? Right now it seems that you pay twice as much for an 80 Inch as you do for a 70 inch.
spyboy is offline  
post #15 of 15 Old 08-06-2013, 03:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 188
The big $$$ difference between 70" and 80" will probably always be there. Maybe not twice as much but substantial. There is just always going to be a very small number of buyers that want or can even utilize an 80" display. 65" to 70" is a reasonable leap but 70" to 80" is a small step for mankind.
andy sullivan is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off