Official SED, Info, Discussion, Etc Thread!!! - Page 47  

I'm not so sure (and I'm sure I'll be told why soon). ;)

MicroSoft, for example, didn't judge the success of the XBox 360 launch by how well they sold in North America and Europe. It was judged by the take-up in Japan and, by all accounts, they failed miserably. The Japanese are the tech-savie users with lots of disposable cash that are the early adopters, that can make or break a tech launch. (I know, I know, different sales model, no software to compensate for taking a loss on hardware, but it's better than a car analogy.)

Great link. Madshi. Finally some real news. From my crystal ball, I see SED entering the flat panel fray afterall, and will be duelling it out w/Plasma & LCD in about 2 years. These SED displays will be ferrari priced for the high-end videophiles for the first few years, and will take a few more years after that to gain real marketshare. By 2012, you may see prices coming down to realistic competition to Plasma & LCD, especially for large screens, but how much of an advantage in 1080p PQ is unknown. For consumers, it's always good to have another competing video tech display out there, so I'm rooting that SED will finally make it to the Stores.

Damn you Toshiba, how dare you force middle-aged men to develop potbellies before you will sell to them. Sorry all you housewives who happen to be living a meaningful existence, no Toshiba for you. You folks just do not meet our criteria, you and your fancy quality standards demands, begone, hit the road. :D :D

So what is the point of this, probably to demonstrate how shallow your reasoning is.

Speaking as a pot-bellied man who wanders around Costco, I'm satisfied to buy last year's technology to tide me over until the dust settles on HDTV sources and the ultimate display technology comes along. Fortunately for me, my wife doesn't love me for the size of my panel.

It makes no sense to buy high-end when all I have is 3 hours a day of prime-time HDTV and a bookcase full of 480i/p DVD's that I've already watched a half-dozen times. Even after the digital broadcast mandate takes effect next year we'll be watching upscaled SD reruns for years.

Uh-uh. This is too close to "a man who doesn't own [have] an STD."

That is exactly right....for now. But we are looking ahead two, three, four years when SED comes out...if it does. By that time, I suspect, broadband 1080p streaming of your favorite movies, etc will be a reality. Then, such a HD set as well as others makes sense. Maybe even broadcast TV will be much improved so it too can enjoyed more on such sets. Demand will drive this, and it is coming.

http://hiddenwires.co.uk/resourcesne...051121-13.html

Precisely: I was just poking some fun at the Blame The Consumer, rant which I quoted. In spite of the point that post was making, some considerable consumer force must be giving a development push to the technology, or we would not be seen the on going progression toward 1080P plasma, with improved contrast etc, and the LCD 1080P panels with lower and lower response time. Settling for what is available at the time a consumer makes a purchase does not(in my opinion) mean that they are not hoping for better displays down the road.

I will let you defend the potbellied men. I do not like stereotyping. Most of us men were taught how to wipe our noses, and how to use a bathroom by housewives, and why we grow up to be so harsh toward them is a sad reflection on us. All the great acts of kindness that I have experienced, have been predominantly bestowed to me by decent, kind hearted women, and none of them is the Queen of Toshiba.

That's my take on the current state of video tech too. I've had HDTV for over 3 years, and I'll most likely upgrade my 40XBR inside the next 24 months w/a 60+" 1080p Plasma. SED will hopefully be around to checkout for the next decade.

i happen to have a beer gut myself, its just that I use picture QUALITY as a selection criteria when buying a TV.

Thats why I didn't join the plasma/LCD stampede 2 years ago and was so keen on SED.

Till my XBR910 tanks...

Great, as if there was not enough to figure out. Now I need to throw weight loss into the equation.

Fat rules, slim wins.

It's a shame so many folks can't enjoy DLPs because of rainbows or whatever.

I don't see any on my 56" 2nd Gen Sammy, and enjoy the hell out of it....I have have had three repairs under the 5 yr extended warranty and will keep it for the remaining 2 1/2 yrs, unless it breaks again and they decide to give me a new set--or credit towards one.

At that point, it would certainly be nice if SED were a reality...or the LED DLPS...

But I want a considerably bigger set next time--at least 65"-- so I may have to go with another interim technology at that point, depending on what is available.

Meanwhile, I really enjoy what I have.

If you don't see rainbows, it is far and away the best bang for the buck.

The only time I have ever seen a rainbow was on my old 720p Samsung DLP when viewing an old classic black and white VHS movie. I or anyone who has watched my new HLR-5668w 1080p set have never seen the rainbow effect (and I have tried really hard to see it myself). Anyway as good as the picture is on my Sammy I still would jump at the chance to own a SED. :)

Well, so would I, if I could afford it--not so sure about that--and if it were available in a larger than 60" size...which makes point number one even more relevant.

All of which, of course, is only relevant if they actually come to market.

Where did everyone go lol. :)

back to waiting. Or shopping for something else.

Hmmm... I was thinking that for a theoretical 42" SED if the quality were really that great, then I'd maybe consider a 720p unit.

Nah... 1080p or bust! :p Maybe I'd take a 50" 1080p unit if the price were right though. :) Aye... There's the rub...

In theory on these units, like on plasmas and CRTs, there is going to be an inverse relationship between resolution and light output/longevity. If you dont need the 1080p at your viewing distance it would be better not to get it. Personally I would be more than happy with a 42" or 50" 720p model. I am still waiting for a similar 42" model plasma which I have read is forthcoming.

ss

ss,
I've given up on SED for the next few years at least and would be interested in a native 720P 42" plasma as well. What have you read?

That 42" plasmas that will fully resolve 1280x720 are due late this year. Whether thats gonna be 1280x720 or 1280x768 or 1366x768 I dont know.

ss

For me, a plasma is out of the question, since I want to use a Mac mini with it. Not only is the resolution too low on current plasmas, there are potential severe burn-in issues. Thus, the only real option is LCD at the moment. Fortunately, it seems that 2006 is the year of 1080p on LCD, and they're not even that expensive.

SED is the other possible future option... but it seems like a 50" is a long, long way off, and a 50" 1080p unit is even further off, especially if I want it to be affordable. (Assuming SED is like CRT with regards to burn-in, then burn-in can still be an issue, but it's pretty small issue unlike with plasma.)

Since LCD is the only real option, I almost made the leap to LCD from CRT this year for my primary TV, but I was held back by a few things, in that order:

1) Generally a dearth of PC-compatible 1080p inputs on higher end LCDs.
2) Quality-control issues on lower end 1080p units.
3) Crappy analogue SD support.
4) Contrast/blacks.
5) Cost.

Note that I have cost on the list even for LCD, despite the fact that LCD is IMO reasonably priced these days, and like most of us here I'm more willing to spend the cash on home theatre equipment compared to most of the population. Toshiba/Canon has already acknowledged themselves that cost is a huge barrier to SED.

In the meantime I have ordered a PC-compatible lower end 1366x768 26" LCD TV to replace my secondary el cheapo CRT in my den, sort of like as a test run for LCD for TV usage.

bugs how far are you trying to view this theoretical multi-tasking display from?

ss

6 feet for the 42" (or possibly a 45"). A 50" would actually be too big, unless I move to a new house.

It will be interesting with my 26" 720p set, cuz I'll be less than 3 feet away. A 23" would have probably been more appropriate, for the area I'll be using it in, but the prices and the specs of the TVs I was considering didn't cut the mustard.

Maybe you should go back and re-read the entire thread for the link you posted. You may learn that there is a difference between burn-in and image retention.

I've done a few calculations of pixel size:

26" 1366x768: 60.3 ppi
42" 1366x768: 37.3 ppi
45" 1366x768: 34.8 ppi
50" 1366x768: 31.3 ppi

42" 1920x1080: 52.4 ppi
45" 1920x1080: 49.0 ppi
50" 1920x1080: 44.1 ppi


I understand the difference, but for my usage, the difference is almost moot. Image retention as manifested by plasmas is unacceptable for me. It's close enough to burn-in to make it a non-starter. For example, the background for Front Row on Macs is black. Very easy to see any retained image. I don't really care if it can eventually go away. I don't want to see it at all (and be stressed out that it will eventually be permanently burned in).

Also, the differences in these two terms does not negate the fact that true burn-in is potentially a much more severe problem with plasmas than it is with LCDs, even if things have improved over the years. Home theatre PC usage is a potentially risky endeavour with many plasma screens.

P.S. Some people define "image retention" as "burn-in" BTW, although I know that's not the case for most people on this forum.

At 6' on a 42" the average viewer will resolve about 1550 horizontal res. Actually at that distance a 50" 1920x1080p would be near ideal. Only that you are sitting that close do you have the opportunity to realistically multi-task using that size range.

ss

Well, 1550 is bigger than 1366. :) Also, I'm not ruling out a 45" just yet either. However, I find a 50" a bit overwhelming at 6'. BTW, where can I find a calculator for resolvable lines online?

However, I'm not sure what you mean by your comment about multitasking and viewing distance.

Viewing distance tells you how much your eyes can resolve on X-sized display at Y distance. For instance, you could not realistically use a 42" display for computer use at say 12' regardless of what the display's resolution was because your eyes cant resolve enough data at that distance to make computer use feasible. Viewing distance trumps everything including resolution. You can use your viewing distance to set your approximate pixel size and then work forward from there.

ss

Yeah, my choice of 42-45" is based on personal preference and gut feeling. ;) A 30" 2560x1600 LCD is usable in this type of context at 3'+, so I figure a 42-45" is reasonable at 1920x1080 at 6'. I would definitely not want to be using it this way as my primary computer though. Oh and the viewing distance is actually slightly less than 6', after I recently moved my furniture.

It would be nice to see a viewing distance calculator that takes into account media centre PC type of usage.

Anyways, back on topic, assuming that screen-door-effect is not an issue, 1366x768 would actually be quite usable in the home theatre PC context, and in some ways superior for some people, simply because the text is larger at standard resolution settings. OTOH, LCD has already set the standard at 1080p, and thus I will use LCD as the final gold standard for resolution, especially when at least some of the extra lines are resolvable at reasonable viewing distances. LCD technology is "good enough" these days for my usage for image quality, especially when cost is a consideration, so I would want SED to be competitive before I seriously consider it for use in this context.

BTW, future OSes (OS X 10.5) are likely to have much more resolution independence, so that increasing OS font size doesn't screw formatting up as much.