AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,046 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Folks,


I have read tons of msgs on this board mentioning that DLP is a newer and better technology than RP LCD, etc. Now the big Q is that IF that is true and is future tech, why is SONY not investing in it or is it? I cannot imagine Sony will all their resources and strongest brand in TVs would not invest in some technology touted to be the latest and greatest? I am a newbie in big screens and finalizing on a 60'' TV.


As for me, I have just ordered the Sony XBR 60'' TV two days back. I still have abt 4 weeks before I get the shipment of the TV and therefore am still open to make the right decision.


Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,515 Posts
Sony does not pay royalties on LCD's and they've decided to explore LCoS for future products, which is also royalty free.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
29,681 Posts
DLP is a technology developed by Texas Instruments.


TI makes the DLP DMD chips....


Sony won't Pay Texas Instruments for their technology....So SONY settles for other lesser and inferior technologies.


TO avoid flames: By "INFERIOR TECHNOLOGY" I mean- LCD and LCos. And by "inferior" I mean that both do not have as good blacks, or contrast, or reliability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Mfusick, I wouldn't fully agree that LCoS is inferior to DLP for these reasons:

- it may get close enough to DLP in PQ that most won't care

- as semiconductor, it may end up beating DLP in price performance

- it may make 1080p economical for everyone


This is all future of course, but promising.


And I think that would be Sony's stance, and Intel's. The question is: How will Sony deal with Intel?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Mfusick
No one can make a good LCos set yet
I would agree with that.

I think all new technologies like this take a long time to mature.


If you look at the history of DLP, you can see how long it took. DLP first got proven in a small market like high end home theater front projectors for many years before making the now successful jump to RPTV. Its dominance of the high end FP market has continually pushed DLP into higher PQ, giving it a big advantage now in the RPTV wars.


LCD projection has also been well proven, in business front projectors. From there it has moved on to home theater front projectors. LCD HD 1280x720 projectors, such as Sanyo and Panasonic, are available for ~$2000, compared to $6000 for an equivalent DLP projector. So in that market, LCD has created a very solid position based on the big price advantage. In rear projection, the price advantage of LCD is very small. And it may soon be disappearing because many more vendors are entering DLP, many using Chinese manufacture. So a foothold for LCD may be much harder to find in RPTV market.


LCoS is being tried out in both front and rear projection at the same time. JVC-DILA has reached a modest amount of maturity, and Philps Cineos seems to be on the verge. Sony hasn't delivered yet. If Intel hadn't jumped in, then LCoS would still be a curiosity this year. But Intel's entry has given hope to LCoS. The spectre of LCoS hasn't impacted DLP, but it has given a pause to LCD becuase they occupy the same market niche.


And I may have written enough here to deserve a barrage of hate mail. But I have no hidden agenda and I express what I really believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Ummmm... the contrast ratio of the Sony SXRD (LCOS) projector is fairly stunning. It's not CRT, but it's in the ballpark of DLP. And that was the very first model....


And the fill factor, filmlike picture, colors, et al. are stunning.


It is plain wrong to damn Sony for pursuing their own breakthrough LCOS. Unfortunately, as correctly noted by Mr. Gupta, it takes time to get this stuff to market.


DLP was a "failure" until it started to succeed. Now, it's a winner. TI still says, "Oh, we wish we never did this" because they spent a fortune along the way. But DLP has reached, what, 2.5 million total units ever. And when it get to 5 million or so (this includes business projectors, et al.), I'm sure some bean counter will finally smile.


I agree that Sony has zero interest in the "TI Tax" if you will. But what they've done is invented one cool technology (SXRD) and licensed another (GLV) and are developing both to have some real unique stuff going forward.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
29,681 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by rogo
Ummmm... the contrast ratio of the Sony SXRD (LCOS) projector is fairly stunning. It's not CRT, but it's in the ballpark of DLP. And that was the very first model....

For $30,000 You can keep it ROGO :)


and when it drops Ten or 20 thousand dollars in price.... you can still keep it.


When it drops to DLP prices... Then I will consider it. Until then it's just theoretical crap to me since I can not afford the price tag.


I play in the under $10,000 sand box.....:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
"The spectre of LCoS hasn't impacted DLP, but it has given a pause to LCD becuase they occupy the same market niche."


Arun, while we can continue to disagree on a lot of things, I think you still have this part wrong... LCD, LCOS and DLP are all in the exact same market when it comes to TVs. The four biggest RPTV makers are Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Sony and Hitachi. Two of them have made a big splash with LCD RPTV. They essentially chose it over DLP. They have a cost edge, but it's the same market.


LCOS is historically a more premium-priced product than DLP. The Toshiba was pricey, the original JVC D'Ahlia was pricey, the Mitsubishi Alpha redefines pricey. Sony's first SXRD RPTV -- whenever it arrives -- will be pricey.


LCOS is not the cheap alternative to LCD you make it out to be. It's got picture-quality advances that exceed DLP in some areas while still lacking in others. I've gone on record as stating that I think the Philips is pretty awful. I'm very curios to see the new JVC D-ILAs due later this year, however.


In the meantime, DLP is sure on a roll, too. They got one of the big four -- Toshiba -- and re-earned Panasonic while also winning LG (although LG is very poorly distributed in the U.S., so I'm not sure how important that is). They also have Thomson, Gateway, Optoma...


But then Epson is entering the market with LCD as well, Panasonic is not exiting, Sony and Hitachi are expanding their play there. The LCD RPTV numbers are well ahead of the DLP numbers today.


LCOS has Philips, JVC, a Sony in the wings, a very small bet by Mitsubishi and a lot of hope. eLCOS and Intel are trying to bring the technology down in price to create a DLP alternative that costs much less -- with the very goal of attacking DLP (not LCD). LCD is still going to be cheaper to build and will be the first to crack $1000 on the way down (still talking RPTV here, not panels).


Philips basically says, "We're as good as Samsung" with their pricing. Panasonic doesn't; nor does Hitachi. Sony is, well, Sony, and prices whatever they can get....


It's impossible to predict if any of this LCOS stuff will make anything more than the smallest dent in the market. I'd like to see it. We can solve the contrast and blacks problem for them and make the CR exceed what you get from DLP.... But really time will tell.


Certainly, in 2004, LCOS volume -- even if JVC launches well -- will be tiny. In 2005, even if Sony launches, LCOS volume will be tiny... If Mitsubishi expands with those two in the market, still -- in raw numbers -- tiny. We are really looking for clues in 2005 and evidence in 2006. But make no mistake, DLP will probably outsell LCOS by 5:1 - 10:1 in 2007... .And if TI is as serious as I think they are, they are going to try to drop the hammer on LCD. One problem is that they'll never get Sony and, boy, Mitsubishi and Hitachi are still quite bitter about their DLP experiences... Can they be brought back into the fold? I dunno... Grudges die hard sometimes.


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
Money had nothing to do with it for me, I simply liked the Sony LCD better than the Sammy DLP. It looked better at more angles and without a doubt handles SD 10 times better. I love HD, but comcast only offer around 6-8 channels. It sucks going from HD to SD, but at least I don't have to do it on a Sammy, which IMO, amplifies poor quality signals. On the money thing, if you have 4000 to spend on a TV, would you rather have a 50" with supposedly better PQ, say a 9/10, or a 60" that is an 8.5/10? I would always go with the real estate. Let's face it, after the first 18 months, you stop watching the PQ and start actually watching the content on the set. In other words, who cares about an 8.5 or a 9.0?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Mark, I pretty much agree with everything you say (here we go again!). We may only have a slightly different slant on DLP vs. LCoS part.


My slant is that LCoS's real promise is that it will offer semiconductor economy against DLP at a comparable PQ. If it has a significant price advantage, then it is meaningful in the market. At least that is the promise behind Intel's entry in the market.


Your slant is that it won't have a price advantage against DLP. In that case we both agree that it will have a much smaller share of the market, at least in the foreseeable future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,877 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryJoe
It looked better at more angles and without a doubt handles SD 10 times better.
You're certainly entitled to your 10x better opinion.


I've had the GWIII and the Samsung DLP in my house, and although the Sony was slightly better at SD, I wouldn't call it 10x better, I wouldn't even go so far as to say it was 2x better. IMHO, the Sony is marginally better than the Samsung DLP when it comes to SD - but neither is great.


Again, just my opinion after having had both in my house...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jfischer
You're certainly entitled to your 10x better opinion.


I've had the GWIII and the Samsung DLP in my house, and although the Sony was slightly better at SD, I wouldn't call it 10x better, I wouldn't even go so far as to say it was 2x better. IMHO, the Sony is marginally better than the Samsung DLP when it comes to SD - but neither is great.


Again, just my opinion after having had both in my house...
OK, 10X was probably a little over zealous, but this was what I saw in the stores.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by arungupta
My slant is that LCoS's real promise is that it will offer semiconductor economy against DLP at a comparable PQ.
Arun, what is the basis for this statement? In what way is DLP not a semiconductor? Both have IC substrates with a superstructure fabricated on top. Not sure about LCoS, but DLP uses standard IC chip fabrication methods from beginning to end (packaging being somewhat of an exception since particle-free techniques had to be developed to avoid damaging the mirrors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
It is my understanding that LCD and LCoS more closely follow Morore's law (doubling of transistors every couple of years) than DLP. I don't have any deep knowledge on this subject, I am reapeating what I've read, most of it related to Intel's entry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Actually, DLP is made with pretty standard CMOS. So it should follow the same logic. I mean LCOS has a weirdo LC layer... DLP has a weirdo superstructure layer... But neither is much weirder than the other.


DLP mirrors are proving tricky to make smaller, but HD3 and xHD3 are achieving resolutions that are sufficient apparently without the full mirror count.


No one knows what TI's yields really are, but I bet they are better than most LCOS stuff to date (time may change that; but TI ain't standing still).


TI is sole source. Intel can't build DMDs; there are patents. So Intel had no choice but LCOS. LCD wasn't going to get them an iota of buzz and, besides, LCD microdisplays require their own tricks to be made (they are differently complicated, and the processes are very different than the chipmaking processess Intel knows; they are pretty cheap as the technology is mature, however).


I think LCOS won't go after the cheap segment when it's Intel because I think LCD will be pushed down the price curve quickly... In the meantime, TI -- as I said -- isn't standing still. They know better than us here that there is no future for DLP in the TV business if it doesn't stay comfortably cheaper than panels. They also know that competition from LCD and LCOS could wipe them out if they act like a monopolist.


I believe that TI is shooting for the $2000 price point in 2005 -- or not too far into 2006. They may be challenged to get there, but I think they are going for it. LCOS will be priced to compete with DLP, not to chase the bottom of the market.


That's not to say that someone won't make a cheap LCOS, of course.


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
You guys seem pretty wise regards this topic.

Could I ask, what relationship DLP, LCoS & LCD have with flat panel displays?


I know LCD rptv panels are the same technology as used in thier flat panel cousins, hence the same problems e.g. contarst & dead pixels.

But what about LCOS & DLP? Do either of these technologies have the potential to 'transfer' onto flat panels, or are they strictly for the RPTV market? ( sorry if that sounds stupid )


It seems to me, the biggest market of all is home computer LCD TFT monitors. Surely as long as this is the case, we will always see improvements with LCD, and hence LCD RPTV technology. Is this a reasonable thing to assume? As long as flat panel monitors use LCD, isnt it a bit of a minefield for new technologies, unless they too can tap into the huge flat panel market?


too many questions! Ill stop there... for now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
But what about LCOS & DLP? Do either of these technologies have the potential to 'transfer' onto flat panels, or are they strictly for the RPTV market? ( sorry if that sounds stupid )

-- I don't see a potential. They are both reflective, which doesn't work in flat panels.


We will always see improvements with LCD, and hence LCD RPTV technology

-- LCD flat panel vs. projection have different challenges. Latest LCD projection systems use postage stamp size Polysilicon LCD panels. LCD RPTV has gained from advances in LCD front projectors, not from LCD flat panels.
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top