or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Your Predictions: WHICH of the following emissive displays (OLED / Crystal LED / Quantum Dot / Other) will be FIRST below $3000 for 55"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your Predictions: WHICH of the following emissive displays (OLED / Crystal LED / Quantum Dot /... - Page 3  

Poll Results: Your Predictions: WHICH of the following emissive displays (OLED / Crystal LED / Quantum Dot / Other) will be FIRST below $3000 for 55"?

 
  • 63% (23)
    OLED
  • 33% (12)
    Crystal LED
  • 2% (1)
    Quantum Dot
  • 0% (0)
    Other
36 Total Votes  
post #61 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

VR: A contractor walks around virtually, fully immersed in a fake world looking at the inside of a building he has constructed. His virtual position and physical head orientation causes the CGI to each eye to change.
That will be such a killer application for real estate market too. A property on sale will be scanned and software will convert it into VR so that people browsing for houses online will be able to walk around inside without travelling to the actual location.
post #62 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

Sure, it goes without saying that the right optics are needed between a display and eyes.

Except those optics are needed to see what's on the glasses. And wouldn't whatever it is you're using to get the OLED clear going to muck up what's coming through from behind it?

How are Microsoft and Google doing it now that they seem to be duking it out in this domain?
post #63 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

That will be such a killer application for real estate market too. A property on sale will be scanned and software will convert it into VR so that people browsing for houses online will be able to walk around inside without travelling to the actual location.

See, this is an example where people who love technology (most of us) think that something technology will enable is a killer app, when it basically isn't.

Nearly no one is buying a house they haven't been in, seen the street, etc. Preliminary property screening can be done with photos, listings, etc. The system could be made better, but the idea that a 3-D virtual tour will obviate the need for a visit is mistaken. Instead, the existing virtual tours will likely get better. Perhaps someday, they will be VR-enabled, but unless more than half the prospective clients have VR goggles, it's not worth it. Instead, you build something that works on most people's computer/tablet/smartphone/TV and you improve it.
post #64 of 121
The only application for VR I really see taking off, is video games, and maybe a small set of the market will want to watch films on them too, if they can actually create a large virtual screen. (Sony claimed this on their head-mounted display, but it looked smaller than my current TV)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

LCD SUX. How much less does it suck if it is 4K?
The reason I ask is it seems like there won't be any plasmas to display it on and OLED doesn't seem like it will be reasonably priced in very large sizes and don't you have to have large sizes to enjoy the impact of 4K?
Which LCD producer seems like it would be the first to offer 4K at $5,000 or less?
Low-end edge-lit LCDs suck. High-end LCDs are good, and arguably better than Plasma. (though the viewing angles do suck on all of them) They are also a lot more expensive than Plasma though, and these days especially, people don't seem to want to pay for quality any more.
post #65 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

See, this is an example where people who love technology (most of us) think that something technology will enable is a killer app, when it basically isn't.
Nearly no one is buying a house they haven't been in, seen the street, etc. Preliminary property screening can be done with photos, listings, etc. The system could be made better, but the idea that a 3-D virtual tour will obviate the need for a visit is mistaken.

I don't think he was saying that they would never visit the houses that made the cut. Of course they would. I think he's saying that it would improve the weeding out process, which right now is far far far too involved with shlepping my carcass over to the site. How many times have pictures just been too rosey? The "Preliminary property screening" would be dramatically improved and produce a far better list of houses to then go visit.
post #66 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

The only application for VR I really see taking off, is video games, and maybe a small set of the market will want to watch films on them too, if they can actually create a large virtual screen. (Sony claimed this on their head-mounted display, but it looked smaller than my current TV)
Low-end edge-lit LCDs suck. High-end LCDs are good, and arguably better than Plasma. (though the viewing angles do suck on all of them) They are also a lot more expensive than Plasma though, and these days especially, people don't seem to want to pay for quality any more.
Arguably indeed. The average videophile would be better off grabbing a Panasonic and getting a better set than paying double for a high-end LCD. tongue.gif
post #67 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Arguably indeed. The average videophile would be better off grabbing a Panasonic and getting a better set than paying double for a high-end LCD. tongue.gif
You can't beat the high-end LED backlit televisions available today with a display that only has 10,000:1 contrast at calibrated levels. (assuming viewing angle is not a concern - but why would you buy a high-end set and not sit in front of it?)

There's no denying that Plasma is better value, but it is not better quality.
Plasma is much better than the majority of edge-lit sets out there though, if you can tolerate their faults. (which are numerous)

I know a number of people that switched to Plasma in the last few years, against my advice, and every single one of them has now told me that they wouldn't buy one again.
post #68 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I don't think he was saying that they would never visit the houses that made the cut. Of course they would. I think he's saying that it would improve the weeding out process, which right now is far far far too involved with shlepping my carcass over to the site. How many times have pictures just been too rosey? The "Preliminary property screening" would be dramatically improved and produce a far better list of houses to then go visit.

Today's posts are reminding me why I don't find spending time at AVS Forum very useful anymore....

By your "logic", the VR tour of the house won't be "far too rosy"....? Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

You can't beat the high-end LED backlit televisions available today with a display that only has 10,000:1 contrast at calibrated levels. (assuming viewing angle is not a concern - but why would you buy a high-end set and not sit in front of it?)
There's no denying that Plasma is better value, but it is not better quality.
Plasma is much better than the majority of edge-lit sets out there though, if you can tolerate their faults. (which are numerous)
I know a number of people that switched to Plasma in the last few years, against my advice, and every single one of them has now told me that they wouldn't buy one again.

And just to be clear.... tgm, it's this post at least as much as yours that has me feeling that way.

I mean, pretty much every professional reviewer thinks they are better quality. But thank goodness we have chronoptimist to set the record straight....
post #69 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Today's posts are reminding me why I don't find spending time at AVS Forum very useful anymore....
By your "logic", the VR tour of the house won't be "far too rosy"....? Please.

(Huh?) Of course it would likely be glitzed to make the house look as good as possible. But are you somehow denying that VR yields more useful information than pictures?
  • It doesn't have to be a 100% non-biased toward the seller to be useful.
  • It affords people more information to weed out the otherwise huge list of possibilities. When looking for homes, that's pretty much the start game: You have a set of I-Hope's and I-Require's, and you use this to take the world of possibilities and come down to sanity.
  • It would be extremely valuable for homes that a builder is offering for which no spec homes exist to walk through. In Massachusetts, I found that many builders offer a choice from a set series of houses which are both locked to an address (House type A on lot 1, etc.) and whose floor plans are not in any way tailorable. My current home is a example of that. I would have loved to have walked through the various builders' plans, complete with exterior views of the neighboring homes.

Assuming that the cumbersome nature of VR was overcome (a different point altogether), then yes, it most certainly would be something people would want to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

You can't beat the high-end LED backlit televisions available today with a display that only has 10,000:1 contrast at calibrated levels. (assuming viewing angle is not a concern - but why would you buy a high-end set and not sit in front of it?)
There's no denying that Plasma is better value, but it is not better quality.

And just to be clear.... tgm, it's this post at least as much as yours that has me feeling that way.
I mean, pretty much every professional reviewer thinks they are better quality. But thank goodness we have chronoptimist to set the record straight....

I have no idea where Chronoptimist is getting this idea of his from, because I certainly don't share the notion, nor do I know anyone else who does, especially here, and I've only read the opposite. "But just to be clear" ..... rogo, it's this post of yours that I find utterly offensive, and needlessly so. If someone says something that you disagree with, disagree as strongly as you like. But this kind of retort is a step toward ad hominem.
post #70 of 121
^As much as I hate to move toward ad hominem territory myself, I think it has something to do with Chrono being a Sony enthusiast. The only group that engages in worse levels of rabidity is the Apple fanatic. biggrin.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

You can't beat the high-end LED backlit televisions available today with a display that only has 10,000:1 contrast at calibrated levels. (assuming viewing angle is not a concern - but why would you buy a high-end set and not sit in front of it?)
There's no denying that Plasma is better value, but it is not better quality.
Plasma is much better than the majority of edge-lit sets out there though, if you can tolerate their faults. (which are numerous)
I know a number of people that switched to Plasma in the last few years, against my advice, and every single one of them has now told me that they wouldn't buy one again.
Yea, well, I ditched LCD in 2007 and couldn't be happier, and the supremacy of PQ in Panasonic's Plasma this year has repeatedly been established.
Edited by vinnie97 - 12/23/12 at 3:00pm
post #71 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

You can't beat the high-end LED backlit televisions available today with a display that only has 10,000:1 contrast at calibrated levels. (assuming viewing angle is not a concern - but why would you buy a high-end set and not sit in front of it?)
There's no denying that Plasma is better value, but it is not better quality.
Plasma is much better than the majority of edge-lit sets out there though, if you can tolerate their faults. (which are numerous)
I know a number of people that switched to Plasma in the last few years, against my advice, and every single one of them has now told me that they wouldn't buy one again.

Ha. Ha. biggrin.gif
post #72 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I don't think he was saying that they would never visit the houses that made the cut. Of course they would. I think he's saying that it would improve the weeding out process, which right now is far far far too involved with shlepping my carcass over to the site. How many times have pictures just been too rosey? The "Preliminary property screening" would be dramatically improved and produce a far better list of houses to then go visit.
Thank you, that's exactly what I meant. VR and AR will definitely make the process of house hunting far more efficient, and, as someone who bought a property in the past, I definitely get what you mean by pictures sometimes being too rosey, and when you visit the place, it turns out you just wasted time. VR would cut down on that wasted time. Real estate business will love VR and AR.
post #73 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Except those optics are needed to see what's on the glasses. And wouldn't whatever it is you're using to get the OLED clear going to muck up what's coming through from behind it?
Hmm, good point. I think this could be addressed by moveable optics to achieve different foci depending on VR/AR mode.
post #74 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

(Huh?) Of course it would likely be glitzed to make the house look as good as possible. But are you somehow denying that VR yields more useful information than pictures?
  • It doesn't have to be a 100% non-biased toward the seller to be useful.
  • It affords people more information to weed out the otherwise huge list of possibilities. When looking for homes, that's pretty much the start game: You have a set of I-Hope's and I-Require's, and you use this to take the world of possibilities and come down to sanity.
  • It would be extremely valuable for homes that a builder is offering for which no spec homes exist to walk through. In Massachusetts, I found that many builders offer a choice from a set series of houses which are both locked to an address (House type A on lot 1, etc.) and whose floor plans are not in any way tailorable. My current home is a example of that. I would have loved to have walked through the various builders' plans, complete with exterior views of the neighboring homes.
Assuming that the cumbersome nature of VR was overcome (a different point altogether), then yes, it most certainly would be something people would want to do.
I have no idea where Chronoptimist is getting this idea of his from, because I certainly don't share the notion, nor do I know anyone else who does, especially here, and I've only read the opposite. "But just to be clear" ..... rogo, it's this post of yours that I find utterly offensive, and needlessly so. If someone says something that you disagree with, disagree as strongly as you like. But this kind of retort is a step toward ad hominem.

There's no ad hominem. Ad hominem is an attack against the person. I'm attacking your utterly bogus argument, not you.

The idea that a VR tour is not going to be overly glammed up, but today's photo tours are is bogus.
The idea that a VR tour is going to obviate a visit, but today's photo tours don't is bogus.
The idea that we need a Rube Goldberg solution like donning goggles and spending 20 minutes "walking" through each house instead of pre-screening the very few we might live in and then visiting them is bogus.

And since all of this will (a) cost a fortune and (b) presume VR goggles are in most homes for it to get past the massive chicken-and-egg problem, it's not a magic bullet solution to making VR popular. In fact, it's not even a good example of why VR might become popular in people's homes. Something like the game in the series "Caprica" seems like a much more plausible example of why it might actually become popular, since there is replay value. Once I pick a new home and move, I don't really need my idiotic VR house tour -- especially since that doubtless would've been overly staged anyway.
post #75 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I mean, pretty much every professional reviewer thinks they are better quality. But thank goodness we have chronoptimist to set the record straight....
Actually, you will find that most reviewers haven't even seen most of the high-end LCDs available, because manufacturers are reluctant to ship them out, and they won't just send them anywhere. Most places that do have a review for them, have to purchase the sets themselves, which puts it out of the reach of most websites for example.

What you will actually find, is that most reviews of the high-end LCDs will put them at least on-par, if not better than the best plasmas of the day. And even if they are considered to be on-par as far as general image quality goes (measured greyscale, color etc.) you still have the sharper, brighter LCD image, better gradation (something no publication seems to mention) the lack of flicker, phosphor lag, ABL, image retention etc. all of which are meaningful differences in my opinion.

Viewing angle is not a concern for me with LCDs, because it is mostly not a problem in a brightly lit room, which would be the only situation that I would ever see the TV off-axis. I bought a high-end TV to sit straight-on to it, and watch film in a darkened room.
If you need to sit off-axis in a darkened room, Plasma is probably a better option for you, if none of the other issues bother you. (or don't bother you enough, that you would rather save some money)
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.hometheater.com/content/sony-xbr-55hx950-3d-lcd-hdtv 
Even prior to a full calibration, the Sony’s color was both remarkably vibrant and natural—matching the demands of any source point for point. The blacks were also dark and rich, the shadow detail impeccable, and the resolution crisp and clean. In short, the picture was hard to resist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.hometheater.com/content/sony-xbr-55hx950-3d-lcd-hdtv 
I’ve said it before, ad nauseam, but the last three Harry Potter movies offer the most challenging tests I’ve yet found for black level and shadow detail. I watched Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 nearly from beginning to end, and the Sony looked stunning throughout. Scenes that on lesser sets can turn into a distracting, “What’s that?” muck become “wow” experiences. Chapter 12 begins with an extremely low-contrast scene, but Voldemort’s minions stood out so clearly in the sheer mass of blacks and deep grays that I could almost count them. Dark scene after dark scene follows this one, and none of them failed to confirm this set’s outstanding black level, shadow detail, and contrast.


As expected, the only real flaw is viewing angle, which no LCD is good at - even IPS panels. (which are too low contrast for a high-end set)
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.hometheater.com/content/sony-xbr-55hx950-3d-lcd-hdtv 
With its sparkling detail and color that can range from subtle to striking, the Sony can show off the best high-definition sources at their jaw- dropping best.

Only in its off-axis viewing quality does the Sony reveal a typical LCD limitation. The picture holds up reasonably well until you reach 25 to 30 degrees off center. Beyond that, the picture starts to fade progressively, beginning at the side of the screen farthest away from you.


And again, it comes down to price in the end. If you have the money, the high-end LCDs are better than Plasma, but Plasma is much better value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.hometheater.com/content/sony-xbr-55hx950-3d-lcd-hdtv 
In a side-by-side 2D comparison with a Panasonic TC-P65VT50 (Home Theater, October 2012) in a fully darkened room, and relative size aside (the Panasonic’s screen is 10 inches larger), the two sets’ performance was very close. I’d give a slight edge in black level and shadow detail to—surprise—the Sony, though the differences were small in that dark room. But when I turned on some over- head lighting, the Sony’s visible contrast held up better than the Panasonic’s. The black bars on less than full-screen sources were also darker on the Sony; on very bright scenes, the Sony’s picture also popped slightly more. Plasma sets can’t, in general, go as bright as LCDs, and particularly not when they’re called on to produce a very bright full-screen image. The colors on the two sets varied slightly, but not enough to give the edge to either. The Sony was a bit sharper as is typical of LCDs, though its smaller screen likely helped here as well.

But the Panasonic had the clear edge in off-axis viewing quality—and also in value. While this 55-inch Sony is comparable in price to the Panasonic, Sony’s 65-inch equivalent (the XBR-65HX950) will run you nearly $1,800 more than the Panasonic at list prices.

Any way you look at it, however, the Sony XBR-55HX950 is a striking performer. From the deepest, darkest scenes in 2D and 3D to its bright, vivid 3D, it’s definitely among the best sets I’ve yet had the pleasure of testing.

Something else worth mentioning, is that the Samsung (I assume) panel used in the HX950, and the HX920 still has a lower native contrast than the Sharp UV2A panel they used in the HX900. (the last "true" flagship set - everything else has been more focused on reducing costs)

They measure 1800:1 native, and I measure almost 3500:1 native on my HX900. This means that, if they have not increased the number of local dimming zones (I don't believe they have) the HX900 will produce a higher-contrast image, with less blooming. (blooming is almost non-existant when watching films on the HX900)
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.hometheater.com/content/sony-xbr-55hx950-3d-lcd-hdtv 
With the LED Dynamic Control on Low, the full-on/full-off contrast ratio measured 11,977:1 (peak white 35.93 ft-L, black 0.003 ft-L). With the LED Dynamic Control off, the corresponding results were 1,797:1, 35.94 ft-L, and 0.020 ft-L.
It's also worth pointing out that the contrast ratio is higher than Panasonic's Plasmas in the low local dimming mode, when the standard local-dimming mode will actually turn the LEDs off, significantly raising contrast from that 12,000:1 number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

^As much as I hate to move toward ad hominem territory myself, I think it has something to do with Chrono being a Sony enthusiast. The only group that engages in worse levels of rabidity is the Apple fanatic. biggrin.gif
I said I felt I was becoming a bit of a Sony fan, by which, I meant that I like their products. While some people on this forum seem to actively be celebrating their potential demise because of their "overpriced products" I think it would be a blow to the industry if we were to lose them, as they are constantly innovating and developing new technologies - more-so than most of the other companies in the AV business.

That's not to say that I think their products are automatically good, but I do think that when they get it right, their products are definitely worth the premium. They are still one of the few manufacturers that actually has a high-end line, when others have simply given up and just cater to the mass-market. Look at Samsung for example; when was the last time they put out a high-end LCD? They haven't had a local-dimming model for years now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Yea, well, I ditched LCD in 2007 and couldn't be happier, and the supremacy of PQ in Panasonic's Plasma this year has repeatedly been established.
Well I hardly think your opinion on the matter is relevant then. 2007 was before we even had local-dimming LED backlit displays. (XBR8 was released in late 2008 if I recall correctly)

There have been significant strides made in recent years. Back in 2007 motion on LCDs was a smeary mess, now they have all but eliminated motion blur with interpolation and/or backlight scanning.
Contrast back then was very low, and now the high-end sets are the top performers. Color used to look unnatural on them, and now they have full color management systems and look every bit as accurate or natural as the best Plasmas.
post #76 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

There's no ad hominem. Ad hominem is an attack against the person. I'm attacking your utterly bogus argument, not you.
The idea that a VR tour is not going to be overly glammed up, but today's photo tours are is bogus.
The idea that a VR tour is going to obviate a visit, but today's photo tours don't is bogus.
The idea that we need a Rube Goldberg solution like donning goggles and spending 20 minutes "walking" through each house instead of pre-screening the very few we might live in and then visiting them is bogus.
And since all of this will (a) cost a fortune and (b) presume VR goggles are in most homes for it to get past the massive chicken-and-egg problem, it's not a magic bullet solution to making VR popular. In fact, it's not even a good example of why VR might become popular in people's homes. Something like the game in the series "Caprica" seems like a much more plausible example of why it might actually become popular, since there is replay value. Once I pick a new home and move, I don't really need my idiotic VR house tour -- especially since that doubtless would've been overly staged anyway.
Gosh, I don't know where to start other than I didn't see Tgm1024 making precisely these claims you are trying to refute. Nobody is saying that photo tours are bogus and VR tours won't be, only that VR tours will be far more reliable and useful for potential buyers, that's all. Assuming same properties, potential buyers would be making more visits based on just photo tours than on VR tours, it's obvious, as VR tours would contain far more information than handful of photos. Also, nobody is saying people would be taking VR tours for EVERY single listing they ever lay their eyes on, only those 10-20 that had been pre-screened through, perhaps, photo tours.

Lastly, how do you know VR tours will cost a fortune and why do you think most homes would have to have VR sets for these real estate applications to succeed? After all, a real estate agent could provide VR tours to his or her clients at the office, no VR set purchase necessary. So, instead of 20 visits, a client visits the agent's office, looks at some VR tours and narrows it all down to 2 properties for a total of 3 visits.

And why are you attacking an idea of "idiotic" VR house tours AFTER client buys a house and moves in if.......nobody has even mentioned or advocated an idea like that? :-)
Edited by vtms - 12/24/12 at 6:31am
post #77 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

There's no ad hominem. Ad hominem is an attack against the person. I'm attacking your utterly bogus argument, not you.
I said it was a step toward ad hominem. And it certainly was: Here's the conversation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist 
There's no denying that Plasma is better value, but it is not better quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo 
And just to be clear.... tgm, it's this post at least as much as yours that has me feeling that way.
I mean, pretty much every professional reviewer thinks they are better quality. But thank goodness we have chronoptimist to set the record straight....
Quote:
Originally Posted by me 
If someone says something that you disagree with, disagree as strongly as you like. But this kind of retort is a step toward ad hominem.

Slamming my argument while equating the quality of my post with someone else's, and then slamming that person absolutely directly. These retorts aren't just stepping toward ad hominem, they're running to it.

Quote:
The idea that a VR tour is not going to be overly glammed up, but today's photo tours are is bogus.
Not the point I was making. BOTH are biased toward the seller and rosey, OF COURSE, but it is more information. Using your logic, if there was one photo for a house, you might say that additional photos would be of no use because they'd be equally glammed up. Nonsense. You're looking for more information. A VR walk-through would most certainly allow me to see the kitchen connected to the living room in a way that wasn't apparent from the photos. In photos you can't look around.

Quote:
The idea that a VR tour is going to obviate a visit, but today's photo tours don't is bogus.
I did not say it would obviate visits. I've been clear to say otherwise from the beginning. It *will* however allow the user to weed out (and hence NOT visit) a plethora more houses than he'd otherwise be able to weed out.

Quote:
The idea that we need a Rube Goldberg solution like donning goggles and spending 20 minutes "walking" through each house instead of pre-screening the very few we might live in and then visiting them is bogus.
"Pre-Screening the very few". And how do you come down to "the very few"? Further, one of the reasons that people are so harsh on housing criteria is because it IS so hard to visit too many houses. Consider:
  • Option one: Photos only, a stringent list of requirements (e.g. tile/yard/fence/ceiling height/bathrooms/etc.) yielding 5 houses you have time to visit.
  • Option two: Forgiving a requirement or two that don't meet your criteria yielding 10 houses. Now I can spend 10 minutes running through them to see how the few things that irk me pan out, to end up with the 5 houses I have time to visit. When buying houses (or looking at apartments) I've often wondered if my requirement list was screwing me out of a dream home, but it was necessary because I only had so much bandwidth.
post #78 of 121
Chrono, the vaunted yearly shootout had the best LCD money can buy, the Sharp, and it still rated lower than the Panasonic.

I don't care what you think of my opinion, but why would I, like a victim of Stockholm syndrome, keep returning to a technology that leaves me disappointed in its shortcomings and which only provides incremental improvements for those shortcomings that bother me most? To hell with that. That would be the equivalent of a visual downgrade, which I'm not willing to do. You also mistakenly assume I have not seen any modern LCDs in action, but you would also be mistaken (a Samsung 32" bought for a family member, in fact, which is most certainly an improvement over my 46" 2007 model visually but still a downgrade of the you-know-what in the parameters that matter to me most).
Edited by vinnie97 - 12/24/12 at 10:12am
post #79 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Chrono, the vaunted yearly shootout had the best LCD money can buy, the Sharp, and it still rated lower than the Panasonic.
I don't care what you think of my opinion, but why would I, like a victim of Stockholm syndrome, keep returning to a technology that leaves me disappointed in its shortcomings and which only provides incremental improvements for those shortcomings that bother me most? To hell with that.
The Sharp Elite uses an RGBY panel which causes all kinds of color accuracy problems, and the local dimming algorithm doesn't turn the LED zones off. There are a number of other issues with that set. If I recall correctly, they didn't have the Sharp Elite set up correctly for the shootout either. (that was the case with one of the better LCDs anyway - it may not have been the Sharp Elite)

Sharp make great LCD panels, but they always fail to back them up with good image processing, and RGBY panels don't belong in a high-end set.
post #80 of 121
Anybody want to answer my question as to who they speculate will be the first LCD producer to come up with a 65-inch 4K display for less than $5,000 and WHEN that will happen?

I think the reason nobody wants to ponder these questions or write about them is they KNOW that it will be a long time if ever!

Which MEANS that the future for most people who buy a video display is that in 2015 all they will have to choose from is LCD that SUX!

I'm on a crusade to remind the AVS world of this fact against the AV industry plant push which will be coming in the next few years that tries to sell AVSers on crummy LCD.

i still don't know how you can have HIGH END in all sorts of products but not on VIDEO displays.

People will spend millions on tube amplifiers, turntables, and speakers but you're telling me that NO ONE would do the same when it comes to video?!

Who BELIEVES that?!!

I believe the motion picture industry MAKES SURE that great video doesn't happen.

The ONLY great vido is Blu-ray--Hollywood gets to make money on that--I think the downgrade to TOTAL world wide LCD domination is so video won't get TOO good for the masses and they wind up not going to the theaters.

Oh and I OBVIOUSLY think that Hollywood has great influence on video display producers.
post #81 of 121
Well, since this is just speculation, with nothing to lose...I'd say the Chinese company Hisense will come out with a 65" 4K at your price point by 2014.

But...............who knows?

Happy Holidays everyone! wink.gif
post #82 of 121
Color (in)accuracy is not going to be most easily detectable without a reference. Otherwise it wasn't far off enough in the shootout to get the Sharp considerably docked. The set not correctly set up was the Sony, I think (though I thought it was omitted from the 2012 shootout altogether).
post #83 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

And why are you attacking an idea of "idiotic" VR house tours AFTER client buys a house and moves in if.......nobody has even mentioned or advocated an idea like that? :-)

Well, you have mentioned it. I'm not sure I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I said it was a step toward ad hominem. And it certainly was: Here's the conversation

Slamming my argument while equating the quality of my post with someone else's, and then slamming that person absolutely directly. These retorts aren't just stepping toward ad hominem, they're running to it.

Certainly, running toward paranoia.
Quote:
Not the point I was making. BOTH are biased toward the seller and rosey, OF COURSE, but it is more information. Using your logic, if there was one photo for a house, you might say that additional photos would be of no use because they'd be equally glammed up. Nonsense. You're looking for more information. A VR walk-through would most certainly allow me to see the kitchen connected to the living room in a way that wasn't apparent from the photos. In photos you can't look around.

That's false. Every decent real-estate web site has 360-degree views of rooms. Sorry, they do and have for more than a decade. And, no, stop parsing my argument inaccurately, You made the false claim that photos can be glammed up but VR tours would be accurate. Let's just admit that's ludicrous.
Quote:
I did not say it would obviate visits. I've been clear to say otherwise from the beginning. It *will* however allow the user to weed out (and hence NOT visit) a plethora more houses than he'd otherwise be able to weed out.

Again, this is how "technophiles" fix problems that don't exist. You can already weed out properties just fine with existing listings and their existing 360 degree photo panoramas. And, in fact, you can weed out most listings with a 2-d photo.
Quote:
"Pre-Screening the very few". And how do you come down to "the very few"? Further, one of the reasons that people are so harsh on housing criteria is because it IS so hard to visit too many houses. Consider:
  • Option one: Photos only, a stringent list of requirements (e.g. tile/yard/fence/ceiling height/bathrooms/etc.) yielding 5 houses you have time to visit.
  • Option two: Forgiving a requirement or two that don't meet your criteria yielding 10 houses. Now I can spend 10 minutes running through them to see how the few things that irk me pan out, to end up with the 5 houses I have time to visit. When buying houses (or looking at apartments) I've often wondered if my requirement list was screwing me out of a dream home, but it was necessary because I only had so much bandwidth.

Again, you've set up a fake problem and "solved" it. You've managed to spend an extra 100 minutes "visiting" these properties in virtual reality, denying yourself some number of real-world visits where you find out that the corner is loaded with homeless people, or there's amazing restaurants nearby, or, wow, this place has a nice view... but you "saved" so much time and got to look at more properties. You've overloaded your choice matrix, which often fails to help people (See, "The Paradox of Choice" for more) and experienced more places in an entirely fake manner.

Oh, and you still have this chicken-and-egg problem: Every single listing needs a high-quality VR tour that is comprehensive and the vast majority of buyers need VR rigs at home. When is this happening by? 2050? 2080? Certainly not 2020.

This is a fake problem, with a fake solution and fake benefits. Oh, and it's for something that people do on average once a decade or so.

It will most surely lead to mass adoption of VR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Chrono, the vaunted yearly shootout had the best LCD money can buy, the Sharp, and it still rated lower than the Panasonic.
I don't care what you think of my opinion, but why would I, like a victim of Stockholm syndrome, keep returning to a technology that leaves me disappointed in its shortcomings and which only provides incremental improvements for those shortcomings that bother me most? To hell with that. That would be the equivalent of a visual downgrade, which I'm not willing to do. You also mistakenly assume I have not seen any modern LCDs in action, but you would also be mistaken (a Samsung 32" bought for a family member, in fact, which is most certainly an improvement over my 46" 2007 model visually but still a downgrade of the you-know-what in the parameters that matter to me most).

Vinnie, why let facts get in the way of a good rant? Chrono likes LCDs, clearly. Professional reviewers clearly prefer plasmas, especially those with access to both technologies (think high end magazines, Cnet, etc.)

In a few years, Chrono's position will be "vindicated" as plasma leaves the market for good.
post #84 of 121
Can you see me quaking with excitement at the prospect (of Plasma's market exit)?eek.gifmad.gif
post #85 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo 
I mean, pretty much every professional reviewer thinks they are better quality. But thank goodness we have chronoptimist to set the record straight....

not true at all.

When the Elite Pro reviews hit the net lots of reviewers rated it higher than most Plasma's (99%) and it was declared the equal of/or even better then the KRP 500A/M by several of them. It was the color problem which kept it from being named new King it seemed (I believe it was Rogo who said that color did not need to be reference rolleyes.gif).

Plasma fan Katzmaier <- CNET LORD
''the overpriced Sharp Elite produces the second-best overall picture quality of any TV we've reviewed since 2008''.eek.gif

The whole ''Plasma/LCd which is better'' thing is a dumb one IMO. A TV should be good enough and several Plasma/LCd models are.
post #86 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Well, you have mentioned it. I'm not sure I did.
No, no, it was you who said, "Once I pick a new home and move, I don't really need my idiotic VR house tour -- especially since that doubtless would've been overly staged anyway."
Just because you're losing this "VR as game-changer in real-estate business" argument badly, doesn't excuse you from playing fair.

Also, instead of arguing on the technological basis, admit that these reasons you list for why VR won't succeed are purely personal, based on your taste, and that's ok. Your use of the word "idiotic" to describe VR strongly suggests that. I guess we'll just have to drag you through the inexorable VR revolution while kicking and screaming. :-)
Edited by vtms - 12/24/12 at 5:06pm
post #87 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

not true at all.
When the Elite Pro reviews hit the net lots of reviewers rated it higher than most Plasma's (99%) and it was declared the equal of/or even better then the KRP 500A/M by several of them. It was the color problem which kept it from being named new King it seemed (I believe it was Rogo who said that color did not need to be reference rolleyes.gif).
Plasma fan Katzmaier <- CNET LORD
''the overpriced Sharp Elite produces the second-best overall picture quality of any TV we've reviewed since 2008''.eek.gif
The whole ''Plasma/LCd which is better'' thing is a dumb one IMO. A TV should be good enough and several Plasma/LCd models are.

Fair point 8mile. The Elite is excellent -- and, of course, an LCD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

No, no, it was you who said, "Once I pick a new home and move, I don't really need my idiotic VR house tour -- especially since that doubtless would've been overly staged anyway."
Just because you're losing this "VR as game-changer in real-estate business" argument badly, doesn't excuse you from playing fair.
Also, instead of arguing on the technological basis, admit that these reasons you list for why VR won't succeed are purely personal, based on your taste, and that's ok. Your use of the word "idiotic" to describe VR strongly suggests that. I guess we'll just have to drag you through the inexorable VR revolution while kicking and screaming. :-)

Let's agree I mis-spoke since obviously I was referring to the selection process, not the after-the-fact bit.

And, no, I believe none of the reasons I list why it won't succeed have anything to do with my personal preference. I believe they all have to do with why it will fail. Again, I'm guessing you pulled "idiotic" out of context to try to prove a fake point.

I've won the real-estate argument as not one argument has been advanced to suggest it will be used any time in the next 20 years by normal people. I've shown the failure to solve the chicken-and-egg problem will render this concept moot, not the mention the perfect adequacy of existing solutions. But thanks for your non-argument.
post #88 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Vinnie, why let facts get in the way of a good rant? Chrono likes LCDs, clearly. Professional reviewers clearly prefer plasmas, especially those with access to both technologies (think high end magazines, Cnet, etc.)
In a few years, Chrono's position will be "vindicated" as plasma leaves the market for good.
As I’ve said, the reviewers that have actually seen the higher end LCDs like the Sharp Elite and Sony’s HX9 series usually rank them as on-par with the best Plasma has to offer, better, or slightly lower due to price. (Which should not be a factor when you are ranking image quality) While Sony’s HX9 series has fewer dimming zones, the colour accuracy is better due using RGB panels and a better CMS (less adjustable, but better by default) and their dimming algorithm is a lot better, including the ability to turn LED zones off. I think Sony’s MotionFlow options are unparalleled in the LCD world, as they mostly avoid the soap opera effect.

I don’t know any site which does testing on the finer points of image quality such as gradation, which is something the much-lauded Kuros were terrible at, even relative to other Plasmas. Similarly, sites are only just starting to look at how a CMS measures below 100% saturation. Few have any kind of measure for motion artefacts like overdriving on LCD or phosphor lag with plasma.

But you’re right that Plasmas are probably going to disappear soon, and that has nothing to do with quality. I will be sad to see them go, because competition is always good. I dread an all-LCD future as much as anyone else, because that’s probably going to be an all edge-LED future, unless they can figure out OLED in the next few years.
post #89 of 121
You can repeat the point about reviewers except that it doesn't change what happened at the Vale Electronics shootout for example or the fact that on a price-adjusted basis -- as you note -- it's really not close.

And, as you also note, it's not close from off axis.

I think your problem with plasmas is that you find these small (real, but small) issues like gradations somehow huge even though they tend to go unnoticed by most people. Things like contrast and color and off-axis viewing tend to be pretty obvious -- similarly brightness, a strength of LCD -- whereas things like PWM, not so much.

Look, all of this is moot soon. Right now, however, you can buy a very high quality plasma for $1500 or more less than the equivalent quality LCD. You have to trade away some brightness, but you get back some off-axis viewing. Everything else is a bunch of minutiae. In two years or so, that choice will be gone. In its place, you'll likely have to spend far more to get the OLED and you might still not be able to get it at 65". That would be a very sad situation.

The fact that a great $3000, 65" display exists today and is only available in plasma with no clear sign of a great LCD in that size/price emerging is a troublesome trend for videophiles. This is especially true given that some of us hoped such a thing would be $2000 by now, not heading for $4000-4500.
post #90 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I've won the real-estate argument as not one argument has been advanced to suggest it will be used any time in the next 20 years by normal people. I've shown the failure to solve the chicken-and-egg problem will render this concept moot, not the mention the perfect adequacy of existing solutions. But thanks for your non-argument.
Sure, if you consider sharing your personal distaste for VR as an "argument" for why VR will fail, then, of course, you've won. With this strategy, you will, of course, win all the arguments you'll ever have, no matter the logic or facts. :-)

You've shown nothing yet to suggest why VR will fail. "Chicken-and-egg" problem was a problem back in early days of HD and, look, there's HD everywhere now. How did that happen? :-) And so will VR be everywhere too in few years because, if there's value in something, people want it and will get it eventually, despite early obstacles. That's how the world works. I guess you're the kind of person who must see VR succeed to admit you were totally wrong about it, probably as early as in 2014. I'll talk to you then.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Your Predictions: WHICH of the following emissive displays (OLED / Crystal LED / Quantum Dot / Other) will be FIRST below $3000 for 55"?