Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Dark Helmet · Nov 21, 2005, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

You keep thinking that.

I am sure it makes you feel better.

You keep avoiding it. I guess that make your TV less crap.

Railroader · Nov 21, 2005, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

You keep avoiding it. I guess that make your TV less crap.

I'll give you a hint. It starts with a "S" and ends in a "Y". And has the letters "W", "E", "G", and "A".

And it has a beautiful picture with great color and awesome sharpness.

Do you want to know what brand of refridgerator I have now? It starts with a "M" and ends in a "G".

You are so caught up in image you have no idea that the image you portray is very shallow.

Kevin · Nov 21, 2005, 06:59 AM

Come on Rail, you aren't ANYONE unless you have a cool TV.

Busemann · Nov 21, 2005, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by SShoot3r

DO NOT GET A PLASMA. LCDs are the best on the market, although more expensive.

Nah, it's the other way around. The best plasma on the market (the Pioneer PDP-506) beats the crap out of any LCD or DLP out there. Cheap plasmas should be avoided though

tooki · Nov 21, 2005, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,122629,pg,2,00.asp

As for power consumption, a study by Japan's Green Purchasing Network--an organization dedicated to promoting environmentally friendly purchasing by consumers, business, and government--concluded that the power consumption of similar-size plasma, CRT, and traditional LCD displays in real-world viewing situations is practically the same. However, the coming generation of LCDs that use LED backlighting, while expected to deliver significantly better color, will consume roughly twice as much power as traditional LCDs of the same size.

WTF? That makes no sense. LEDs are more energy-efficient than fluorescent tubes. If they weren't, why does every cell phone and PDA use LEDs?

tooki

Eug Wanker · Nov 21, 2005, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by tooki

WTF? That makes no sense. LEDs are more energy-efficient than fluorescent tubes. If they weren't, why does every cell phone and PDA use LEDs?

??? My cell phone uses an LCD.

Anyways, they're talking colour LEDs. While slow monochrome LEDs will use much less power than colour LCDs, the article is talking about colour LEDs for TV use, which is a completely different kettle of fish. The goal is to have them use less power than current LCDs, but I guess they're not there yet power-wise if the article is accurate. (They're not there yet for other reasons so it's moot anyways.) Everything has it's plusses and minuses, but in 2005/2006, LCDs are truly a very good option.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I don't want to say your LCD TV isn't good but I have done about 100+ hours on research on the matter and so far not one LCD TV has come out for being as good as other technologies.

I have had an HD-TV since 1999.

Here is my own experience:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=223497

I'd buy an LCD, despite their limitations. And yes, I've seen the blacks, and I have had a CRT HDTV for 4-5 years.

Originally Posted by Macpilot

It weighs 300 pounds, but I don't move it very often.

When I got mine delivered, they sent one delivery guy and one salesman (because they were short on delivery guys). It was a 175 lb 32" widescreen CRT.

While he was able to get it into the delivery van, the salesman couldn't lift the TV up my stairs.

I'm not Arnie either, but luckily I was a little better shape at the time so the delivery guy and I were able to carry it up to my living room.

Railroader · Nov 21, 2005, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Come on Rail, you aren't ANYONE unless you have a cool TV.

And watch sci-fi or anime!

tooki · 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

??? My cell phone uses an LCD.

Anyways, they're talking colour LEDs. While slow monochrome LEDs will use much less power than colour LCDs, the article is talking about colour LEDs for TV use, which is a completely different kettle of fish. The goal is to have them use less power than current LCDs, but I guess they're not there yet power-wise if the article is accurate. (They're not there yet for other reasons so it's moot anyways.) Everything has it's plusses and minuses, but in 2005/2006, LCDs are truly a very good option.

No no no, LED backlighting. Your cellphone uses LED backlighting. They all do.

As for color vs monochrome LED: there is no such thing as a "full-color" LED (only full-color arrays -- a single LED chip is always a single color). LEDs are inherently monochrome. Color LCDs that use LED backlights are using the LCD to create colors; the LEDs just provide the light source. White, in their case.

White LED light can be produced in three ways:

1. Tricolor: put red, green and blue LEDs in the same housing. The colors mix to form white. (This method is expensive, but allows the level of RGB to be adjusted, allowing for true color temperature adjustment.)

2. Blue LED with yellow scintillator: a blue LED is coated with a yellow-emitting scintillator, which absorbs part of the blue light and converts it to yellow light. Its output blends with the remaining blue to form white.

3. UV LED with white phosphor: a UV-emitting LED is coated with white phosphor, converting all the UV to white visible light.

As for LEDs' switching speed... while I don't know how fast the phosphors/scintillators can react (I expect they slow things down), LEDs themselves have extremely fast cycle times -- in the megahertz. So a tricolor LED, which is really just 3 or more LEDs in a single housing, can change color millions of times a second.

Regardless, it's a moot point: the LEDs are just for the backlighting, and wouldn't need to be switched on and off except when you turn the screen on and off. (Sony might continue their Cinema Black system, where the actual light source is dimmed on darker scenes to produce a blacker black. LEDs would do a fantastic job at this.)

tooki

tooki · Nov 21, 2005, 11:56 AM

Oh, and be sure you're not thinking of OLED, which is a replacement for LCD, as opposed to a technology used with LCD. OLED shares little in common with the LED other than the name.

tooki

Eug Wanker · Nov 21, 2005, 12:12 PM

OK Tooki, I was specifically talking about the future potential for LED TVs, not LED backlighting. I just reread the paragraph and realize now I was mistaken. They're just talking about LED backlighting.

And yes, by "full-colour" I mean RGB tri-colour LED technology. I wasn't talking about OLEDs either.

Anyways, I was just reading some online article a while back about about the concept of LED TVs, and the bottom line (as you probably know) is that it's a long way off for numerous reasons, and in fact may never see the light of day.

wallinbl · Nov 21, 2005, 12:13 PM

I don't get the fascination with all the new fangle TV types. None of them look as good as the tube (CRT) does. They don't come as large as some of the others, but they look a ton better. Most people don't realize that they don't need such a large TV because their room isn't big enough for one anyway. If you care about picture quality, get an HD CRT.

Eug Wanker · Nov 21, 2005, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

I don't get the fascination with all the new fangle TV types. None of them look as good as the tube (CRT) does. They don't come as large as some of the others, but they look a ton better. Most people don't realize that they don't need such a large TV because their room isn't big enough for one anyway. If you care about picture quality, get an HD CRT.

I have a direct view HD CRT already.

The CRT is good, but it's got it's own drawbacks. For one, most CRTs don't have the true resolution they're claimed to have, and of course, they're absolutely humungous. It's hard to argue with the ability to hang an LCD on the wall. (I live in a small townhouse, and I could do without all the wasted space taken up by my CRT.)

Dark Helmet · Nov 21, 2005, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I have a direct view HD CRT already.

The CRT is good, but it's got it's own drawbacks. For one, most CRTs don't have the true resolution they're claimed to have, and of course, they're absolutely humungous. It's hard to argue with the ability to hang an LCD on the wall. (I live in a small townhouse, and I could do without all the wasted space taken up by my CRT.)

They also weigh a ton, can get burn in and fade over time. My biggest complaint about them is the screen door effect (worse that LCD projection).

Eug Wanker · Nov 21, 2005, 12:49 PM

I'll buy a something like a 45"-50" 1920x1080 LCD or plasma in 2008 methinks. Hopefully it should be $3000 CAD (~US$2500).

Dark Helmet · Nov 21, 2005, 12:51 PM

My next TV will hopefully be a OLCD. Hopefully i can skip plasma's alltogether.

MacMan4000 · Nov 21, 2005, 04:49 PM

I didn't read the whole 3 pages of this thread, actually, i didn't read any of it, but I would like to comment that my dad's 50" plasma TV makes the lights in the house dim when you turn it on.

tooki · Nov 21, 2005, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

OK Tooki, I was specifically talking about the future potential for LED TVs, not LED backlighting. I just reread the paragraph and realize now I was mistaken. They're just talking about LED backlighting.

And yes, by "full-colour" I mean RGB tri-colour LED technology. I wasn't talking about OLEDs either.

Anyways, I was just reading some online article a while back about about the concept of LED TVs, and the bottom line (as you probably know) is that it's a long way off for numerous reasons, and in fact may never see the light of day.

You mean OLED TVs? From what I hear, the technology is advancing nicely and should be ready for market within a few years.

If you mean some kind of TV that is not OLED, and not LCD with LED backlight -- some form of pure LED technology -- I've never heard of such a thing.

As for LED response time: semiconductor LEDs (the kind that you mean when you say "LED" with no further qualification) have extremely fast response times, be they monochrome or tricolor (or bicolor, for that matter), since they all rely on single semiconductor chips as light sources. Color LEDs that use a phosphor (such as white LEDs and the myriad of high-power colored ones they have now: pink, emerald green, purple, etc) would be less efficient and less responsive than a pure semiconductor LED. But there's no reason to make RGB LEDs using phosphors or scintillators, since pure semiconductor LEDs exist in RGB already.

tooki

Dark Helmet · Nov 21, 2005, 07:49 PM

Well well well... it seems the hunter has become the hunted.....

(nice to see mods get tripple posts also)

tooki · Nov 21, 2005, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Well well well... it seems the hunter has become the hunted.....

(nice to see mods get tripple posts also)

Yep. This version of the software seems to have introduced a delay between when a post gets saved and when it gets displayed, because this has happened to me several times, despite me checking (by reloading the thread) to see if my message got posted before pressing "post" again.

At least this version makes it a lot easier to delete multiple posts... sigh...

tooki