LCD or Plasma

What crap!

technology.

Hope that something better than LCD/Plasma is developed.

Good example, you can pay far more money for far less performance if you really want.

Which is what they said about valve amps 40 years ago!

one

Who was it that said "news of my death appears to be premature" (or something like that :-)

no

Regulations are another issue entirely. I'll bet the manufacturers simply choose not to bother since demand is too low.

MrT.

It is probably the main reason why people have ditched CRT and rear- pro in favour of Plasma and LCD.

As I've said before, LCD and Plasma have there PRO's and CON's, that is why I have one of each, they are used for different purposes. I prefer either depending on the use.

Sure, and the picture is crap of course. But some people don't mind, they have their big screen at the lowest price.

I've noticed that rear-projection is getting very cheap, I think I saw a fairly decent looking Sony 40" for > when A-B'ing CRT and LCD then I think an eye checkup is in order!

No need to thanks, I am comparing regular def CRT's to LCD's that have almost replaced them.

If I ever see one before they get discontinued and dropped from the range as all hi-def CRT's will, I'll let you know!

Dave.

Speaking of CRT, monitors will be there for a while. LCDs just do not have same color reproduction as CRTs do and you can not make small high-res plasmas.

Rudolf

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:09:01 +1000, "Mr.T" put finger to keyboard and composed:

Surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED):

"A surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) is a flat panel display technology that uses surface conduction electron emitters for every individual display pixel. The surface conduction emitter emits electrons that excite a phosphor coating on the display panel, the same basic concept found in traditional cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions. This means that SEDs use small cathode ray tubes behind every single pixel (instead of one tube for the whole display) and can combine the slim form factor of LCDs and plasma displays with the superior viewing angles, contrast, black levels, color definition and pixel response time of CRTs. Canon also claims that SEDs consume less power than LCD displays."

- Franc Zabkar

Tha's one of the big problems IMO. What is needed is a new technology with the benefits of both, and better than either, because I'm not sure what your other use is besides watching TV?

Agreed, if you can afford the home cinema room to go with it.

So apples with oranges then. The only way you can make your case I guess. And you also refuse to compare regular def CRT's with 480 line plasma's because you know which one wins there too.

Don't bother, I'll still be happily enjoying mine whatever your opinion.

MrT.

plenty

Yes that's one technology I hope might be the answer, or maybe something even better in years to come. One thing I will bet my house on, neither LCD or Plasma will be around as long as CRT TV's have been. Thankfully :-)

MrT.

messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Surprisingly, watching movies on DVD. Most of the regular TV watching gets done in the (bright) kitchen/ living room on the LCD, but that's no place to relax and watch a movie for several hours. That's what the dark loungeroom, comfy leather couches, 5.1 surround and bigger screen plasma is for.

No apples with apples.

Of course I know which one wins there, 480 lines on the plasma does not cut the mustard. It does not even let you see Region 4 PAL DVD's or SD Digital TV at their full resolution (576 lines). The reason I don't compare them is because they are not in the same market, so that would be comparing apples with oranges. You can't get a plasma under 40" or so, and you can't get a CRT over 32" or so, they are two entirely different market segments.

LCD's on the other hand are designed to replace replace CRT in the smaller screen market, so it is fair to compare those. And I don't think there are any LCD's under 768 lines (I stand to be corrected though), so the resolution is a whole lot better than standard def CRT's.

Dave.

with

your

I use my TV to do that too. I'm glad then that I don't need a Plasma *AND* an LCD to watch both. How awful, not to mention expensive.

Or two much cheaper CRT screens like I have, (In fact I have three, and all

guess.

Or maybe you just can't tell the difference between an apple and a banana?

If you really think a Hires LCD can only be compared to a standard def CRT, then I agree with you. And I also agree that a 480 line plasma is inferior too. By default that makes a HiDef CRT best, so we are not disagreeing after all.

I'm glad you agree.

HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!! Not in the same market would apply to comparing a low cost standard def CRT to a FAR more expensive Hires LCD or plasma, rather than compare with a still cheaper HiDef CRT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed, IF size is the only consideration.

And you still insist on comparing LCD to the far cheaper standard def CRT's rather than the still cheaper HiDef CRT's, just to make some stupid point.

The only thing you have proven is that you haven't even seen the real competition, so your whole rant is completely pointless.

I'm still waiting for your list of 32" LCD monitors with HiDef tuner for $1000 that you think beat the LG 32FS4D? That would be comparing at the same price point at least!

MrT.

I had a top-of-the-line 76cm widscreen European CRT that was only a couple of years old, but I wanted to upgrade to a larger screen, as a great majority of people do these days.

I'm incredibly happy for you. I would rather have *one* of my big screen, smaller, lighter, and much better looking TV's to your 3 smaller, heavier and uglier CRT's any day, thanks.

Most people want bigger and better looking screens these days, didn't you know? In the smaller market segment people prefer LCD over CRT for many reasons, that is why CRT's are almost dead.

I'm doing that because that is basically all you can see and get in most shops. I bet the average Joe doesn't even know you can get hi-def CRT's, not that they would care I suspect, as they like LCD better even if they are more expensive. Hi-def CRT's came along far too late, they have missed the boat completely and get hardly any shelf space in the shops (as do most CRT's now). Hi-def CRT's will *never* sell and will die an early death, stock up now dude.

It is clear we are making two entirely different points, neither of which is "stupid".

Dave.

Oh, another advantage of LCD over CRTs (even your beloved LG hi-def I'm sure) I don't think I've mentioned (only in relation to plasma), CRT's suck in bright light conditions. The glare and washed out colours are awful, LCD perform much better in this respect.

Dave.

So true, and yet you still want to flog a dead horse.

MrT.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:45 -0700, "David L. Jones" put finger to keyboard and composed:

There are LG plasma, Sharp LCD, and JVC plasma TVs in the Serviceman's Log in the latest issue of Silicon Chip mag. The JVC was deemed uneconomical to repair due to "faulty scan and control modules", the LG required a new Z SUS board, and the Sharp needed a kit of smt parts. I can see that in the near future all appliance "repairs" will be done by trained monkeys. Maybe someone should start an appliance wrecking yard.

- Franc Zabkar

Interesting you should say that Rudolf. I always thought the same thing, but have noticed most graphic designers (Well the ones I deal with anyway) are using LCD displays, despite the colour gamut limitations. Although mybe they have little choice with a new Mac, I don't know. And let's face it, they are the majority of Mac users :)

James

hi, lcd tv`s are absolute crap , ever noticed the blacks are not really black ???? and as soon as you go to the side a bit it looks crap. plasma , only way to go . mark k

but

they

Did you ask them how much their professional LCD monitor cost though? Even the Apple Cinema display is not satisfactory for much professional graphic work IMO. Of course it is fine for some uses though.

MrT.

I was at one of the establishments today and the Apple HD Cinema display IS what one of the graphic artists and the production manager were using. The others were using what looked to be run of the mill 19" displays.

James

IS

Which just proves you can use *anything* that your are happy with, if you are prepared to put your name on the work :-)

MrT.

Well, actually it shows that the people doing the design are not the people who are most concerned with colour accuracy. For critical work, that would usually be entrusted to a prepress agency who colour-correct images on calibrated monitors before they go to press. Designers often bypass prepress these days because automatic profile-based colour matching is good enough 90% of the time. For serious work requiring high quality, you wouldn't find the designer doing it him/herself, nor would you find the colour correction being done on an Apple display or similar mid-range LCD. Or an LCD at all, most likely (with the exception of that LED backlit thing whose manufacturer I can't recall).

Cheers, MK.