backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by KaerfSusej.. on Jun 21 at 1:25 PM

eCinema says it has a true CRT replacement

LCD panels have traditionally been lagging behind CRT monitors in terms of color response, saturation, accuracy and overall black-level response. Because LCDs are "always lit" by a backlight, deep dark blacks have been the Achilles heel of LCD technology. However, a company named eCinema Systems has announced a new LCD technology that it claims surpasses CRT in virtually every respect.

eCinema's new LCD technology is being called high dynamic range LCD, and also supports "deep color", which is higher than 24-bit color, starting at 30-bit or 36-bit and can go up to 48-bit. The new panels are able to display 36-bit color (12-bits per color channel), and 1000 to 4000 step gray-scales, producing fantastic gradients. Most LCDs today produce only 256 gray steps at most. This new "deep color" technology will be standard with the new HDMI 1.3 specification. What's most spectacular about eCinema's LCD display however, is its contrast ratio: 30,000:1. At this rating, eCinema's new DCM40HDR panel can achieve black levels that even CRTs cannot match. eCinema CEO Martin Euredjian said:

"It is well known that LCD displays did not until now produce the same deep blacks that were achievable when using a CRT. Color depth is, of course, the 8 bit bottleneck issue. Images on the screen -- at the pixel level -- are limited to a best-case of 256 levels between black and white. In other words, if you painted a gray scale you could, at most, see 256 steps. The reality of the matter is that due to calibration and gamma adjustments most displays can't do much better than about 200 steps between black and white."

eCinema will be launching its new DCM40HDR 40-inch LCD by Q4 of this year. The new panel will be a true 1080p display and will be suitable for professional applications where only CRTs were used. Key features of the DCM40HDR will be:

  • Darkest black level output of any TFT in the market
  • Can be used for professional color grading -- previously done using only CRTs
  • Can be used for professional critical picture evaluation -- previously done using only CRTs
  • Allows accurate viewing of intra-field motion on interlaced standards
  • Video displayed at true frame rates for all standards
  • Rugged shock mounted components for field operations

If eCinema's displays perform well, this could mean higher quality LCD panels across the industry. The company says that its DCM series of LCD panels are reference-grade monitors suitable for critical viewing environments:

Production and Post can now discuss color with accuracy, confidence and reliability. Post production partners can work on common projects knowing that all work is viewed on precisely matched no-maintenance monitoring systems. In addition to this, clients can evaluate in-progress or finished work remotely while assured that the colorist saw exactly what they are seeing.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not getting the whole picture
By OddTSi on 6/14/2006 2:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
I find it curious that they only talk about the fact that they can get deep blacks, what about the whites? Not saying that this is what they did but it's possible for a monitor to have a tinted screen in order to get deep blacks, but then whites would look, well, not white.

Also, I see no listing of response times for the monitor.

Personally I'm not holding much hope for LCD technology to ever be able to meet or surpass CRT technology in terms of picture quality. That task will probably land in the lap of SED or OLED, assuming they ever release it. Speaking of which, what the hell is taking so long?




RE: Not getting the whole picture
By goku on 6/14/2006 3:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
While SED is promising, it still emits radiation much like CRTs (SED is tiny CRTs instead of one).


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By ChuckvB on 6/14/2006 3:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
Improvements in technology are always better at any cost, because in time the benefits always trickle down to the lower cost products either directly or indirectly.


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By Xavian on 6/14/2006 4:02:34 PM , Rating: 3
The radiation admitted by even the biggest CRT's is well well below the safety limits.

You'd have more chance of being hit my a small asteroid on the head then contracting anything from the miniscule radiation produced. Hell, theres tonnes of radiation outside, should we not go outside too? :P


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By PLaYaHaTeD on 6/14/2006 5:20:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The radiation admitted by even the biggest CRT's is well well below the safety limits.


I must emit, you are damn right about that!


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By Xavian on 6/14/2006 8:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
whoops emitted :P

thanks for that.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 4:50:44 PM , Rating: 3
> "While SED is promising, it still emits radiation much like CRTs (SED is tiny CRTs instead of one). "

The acceleration voltage for SED emitters is far below that of a CRT, meaning they emit a tiny fraction of the radiation...not that CRTs were by any stretch of the imagination dangerous.


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By Phynaz on 6/14/2006 3:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Speaking of which, what the hell is taking so long?


Money.

It took color LCDs 15 years to come down to a mass market price. OLED and SED are a decade away.


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By Xavian on 6/14/2006 4:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
the thing is, as technology advances at a more faster and faster rate, i wouldn't be surprised if OLED displays, drop to mainstream prices in 5 years or less. Why you ask?

OLED's are actually cheaper to make then LCD's, since they can actually be printed directly onto the display, this allows for far far cheaper production, the ONLY thing keeping OLED's from becoming a mainstream product is the relatively little lifespan of the organic material required to generate the colour blue. Once they manage to extend the lifespan to close to the amount the red OLED's enjoy, then we will see a mass market product. 5 Years isn't a bad prediction as to when that could happen (after all in the past 5 years, blue OLED lifespans have gone from 3,000 hours to some 20,000 hours).

So don't be surprised if OLED becomes mainstream within 5 years or less. :)


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 5:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "the ONLY thing keeping OLED's from becoming a mainstream product is the relatively little lifespan of the organic material required to generate the colour blue. "

It's not the only thing...there are troubles with efficiency, barrier films, a whole host of patent issues, and some other problems. Personally, I don't expect to see OLED become mainstream for another 8-10 years. But technology is hard to predict.


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By Xavian on 6/14/2006 8:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
Efficency issues are worked out over time, as for Patent Issues, i personally think patenting an idea should be banned (but thats an issue for another debate).

I guess in a couple of years we will see who's right, as technology accelerates i think the lifespan of the research, experiment, test, release, mature cycle for formats will get smaller and smaller.

After all it took CRT's many many decades to mature fully, yet LCD displays are taking a fraction of the time.


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By Lakku on 6/14/2006 8:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
30,000:1 is not far fetched. In fact, there is a company in Canada that makes a specially built, liquid cooled TV that uses 1680 watts of power, and uses thousands of LEDs as the backlights. The point? It is a high dynamic range display that produces hundreds of thousands to 1 contrast ratio. In fact, it can turn the backlights off when need be so it has the purest black possible: no light at all. But, they had to give it some kind of rating so it stands at around 200,000:1 or more for the contrast ratio. David Kirk of nVidia has spoken about HDR monitors and I think they will be the next big thing in the coming years. It will take awhile to get them consumer friendly though.

http://seancaptain.typepad.com/seantech/2005/11/br...

That is the link to someone talking about it, and the TV is from BrightSide. All for the cool price of 50 grand. (That's $50,000 US dollars by the way).


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By sweb74 on 6/14/2006 10:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is that 30000 to 1 sounds impressive, but CRT has,theoretically, an infinite contrast ratio which is why it never report the contrast ratio. Having deeper blacks levels than CRT make absolutely no sense either because CRT blacks are created by the absence of light, which is black. So this statement is saying blacker than black, huh? That is a ridiculous statement to make that it is better than CRT in every aspect, because it just isn't true.

Now on the other hand I am excited to see real advancement in this technology as it seems to have more legs than Plasma.


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By Drexial on 6/15/2006 2:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
CRT's dont have a true black responce because of the light that we do see comming out of a monitor still interferes with the black areas, ive seen monitors and TVs with a slight glow even though they had a black screen at the time.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 10:05:57 AM , Rating: 2
> "The thing is that 30000 to 1 sounds impressive, but CRT has,theoretically, an infinite contrast ratio which is why it never report the contrast ratio."

The subject is not nearly so simple. CRT's don't have an infinite contrast ratio. You measure a CRT via ANSI CR, which is the contrast ratio between alternating black-and-white blocks displayed at once.

However, LCDs are typically measured via a much simpler "On-Off" CR....the ratio of the whitest white to the darkest black they can display...even at separate intervals. This is because LCDs can't dynamically adjust their gamma like a CRT. So OOCR = ANSI CR very closely.

However some newer LCDS *can* adjust their gamma. The dynamic-iris LCD projectors, for one, and the dynamic-backlit HighBrights for another. Measuring such displays with OOCR gives them unrealistically high contrast ratios.



RE: Not getting the whole picture
By saratoga on 6/15/2006 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The thing is that 30000 to 1 sounds impressive, but CRT has,theoretically, an infinite contrast ratio which is why it never report the contrast ratio. Having deeper blacks levels than CRT make absolutely no sense either because CRT blacks are created by the absence of light, which is black. So this statement is saying blacker than black, huh?


Have you ever looked carefully at a CRT? Yes, the dark areas are darker then an LCD, but they're not black. Not even close. More of a dark grey. Turn off the lights in your room, bring up a black screen, and then turn off the CRT. Notice how the "black" gets darker.


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By SyxPak on 6/15/2006 6:08:47 AM , Rating: 2
Damn right Lakku,
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/bright...

It doesn't matter how fast or efficient your tft is, it will never be able to match the black created by simply turning off the localised lightsource behind it.
The simplest solution is often the best.

This article is old news, riding on the HDMI 1.3 newsbuzz.

As for contrast ratio, it means sweet-fsck-all.
If using traditional bar lighting as on common TFTs, the light is mostly blocked by the pixels. The lower the light level specified for 'zero' (ie 0.00000001), the higher the ratio will be.
If, however, you have true black (0), you're dividing the maximal brightness by zero, which is essentially infinity.
Reading the manufacturer's contrast ratio specs as anything other than rough guidelines and the marketing department's spin on the technical specs is a poor basis for a purchase decision.
Looking at the overall quality and performance of the product through 3rd party reviews is a better yardstick.


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 10:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
> "It doesn't matter how fast or efficient your tft is, it will never be able to match the black created by simply turning off the localised lightsource behind it."

The only way you can turn off the lightsource to a single pixel is to put an independent source at each pixel. In which case, you're right back to an emissive display technology.

The Brightside monitor doesn't put a source at each pixel...it uses 50K or so LEDs, meaning 40-odd pixels each share a lightsource. So what happens when half those need to be ultrabright, and half ultradark? Oops.

None of our current methods of measuring CR are able to accurately give us a figure for such a monitor. OOCR would give an infinite ratio. ANSI CR would depend on the alignment of the test pattern...align to LED pattern, and you get a value prevented from infinity only by pixel bleedover. However, shift that pattern slightly, and you get a CR not much better than a standard LCD.


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By tygrus on 6/15/2006 9:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's all an optical illusion. Not the contrast level but our eyes work in favour of the lower res arrayed backlight.
The trick is a large area of what should be black will normally glows a little. If we up the ambient lighting the black level glow becomes less significant. A bight pixel next to a dark pixel is very noticeable but the dark pixel looks very black as our eyes adjust to the bright area next to it. When viewing a DVD in widescreen letterbox the top and bottom edge will quickly fade to extreme black and the edge of the video may be slightly darker also.
(www.brightsidetech.com)
I brighter screen means you need to increase ambient lighting nearby so it doesn't hurt your eyes.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2006 9:35:55 AM , Rating: 3
Um, no. Contrast ratios are measured by very sensitive and accurate machines, in total darkness. Its not an "optical illusion"...the dynamic range on such a display *is* much higher than a standard LCD.

The only problem is our current measuring techniques don't accurate measure ratios involving spatial or temporal dependencies.


RE: Not getting the whole picture
By saratoga on 6/15/2006 3:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find it curious that they only talk about the fact that they can get deep blacks, what about the whites? Not saying that this is what they did but it's possible for a monitor to have a tinted screen in order to get deep blacks, but then whites would look, well, not white.


You can set the white to whatever you want through calibration, contrast, brightness, etc. What you can't do is set the white and black at the same time since the contrast ratio is finite. So when they talk about black, they mean that for a given white, you can get 30,000 times less brightness in your black areas. Depending on the user, the exact brightness may be higher or lower depending on preference.


If only
By Squidward on 6/14/2006 1:45:46 PM , Rating: 4
that adorable redhead came with the monitor. That would justify a high price...

Mmmm. Redheads :)

Talk about your deep color reproduction. Umm. Sorry.

It's great to see advances being made in the few remaining drawbacks of LCD monitors. Won't be long at all til it trickles down to more budget oriented monitors.




RE: If only
By Griswold on 6/14/2006 2:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
She is actually blonde.


RE: If only
By Squidward on 6/14/2006 2:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
If she is blonde then my sony lcd is pooptacular, and I'm obviously not getting proper color reproduction. She looks as redheaded as can be when I view the pic.



RE: If only
By tk109 on 6/14/2006 3:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I dont get why he said she's blonde....Even if it was a joke I dont get the joke.

As far as the specs go... They seem very extravagant. But they dont say how it's possible at all or what they did to get these kind of specs. Makes me more than a little leary. But we'll have reviews soon enough I'm sure. I'm more than curious now to see how these turn out.


RE: If only
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 4:49:05 PM , Rating: 1
> "Yeah I dont get why he said she's blonde....Even if it was a joke I dont get the joke. "

Well I got it...and it was pretty funny. :p


RE: If only
By Trisped on 6/14/2006 2:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that is a deeper red then what I would even call strawberry blond. And the eyes, so bluuueeee....

I would need to see the actual black levels, the response time, cost, and what ports it offered before I buy. Still it looks nice.

I wonder how long before OLEDs become useable in a 23"+ display with an expected life of 100,000 hours+. Even a hybrid LCD/OLED system would be nice.


RE: If only
By Trisped on 6/14/2006 3:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and what’s the latency? There is no point buying a new monitor if it takes games a half second to display.


RE: If only
By bfonnes on 6/15/2006 12:11:35 AM , Rating: 2
woohoo, I just found my new background for Windows ;)


This would be great for medicine
By protosv on 6/14/2006 1:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
This monitor would be highly desirable in the medical community. Radiologists still have to use CRTs becuase they offer the clearest and highest quality picture. So they were using 21" CRTs. Needless to say, this is impractical from a deskspace point of view. This may change things though, and clear some space in the rad depts. in many hospitals. Also, any info on initial pricing?




RE: This would be great for medicine
By kmmatney on 6/14/2006 2:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
Eizo has been making medical LCD displays for quite some time:

http://radiforce.com/en/products/dm.html

http://radiforce.com/en/products/mono-g51-g-dm.htm...


RE: This would be great for medicine
By proamerica on 6/14/2006 2:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
He also specifically said Radiologists. I have seen many LCD's in hospitals as well, usually they are displaying lines of text or some kind of touch screen.


RE: This would be great for medicine
By Zirconium on 6/14/2006 6:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
From the link:
quote:
G51-BLG and G51-CLG are variation models of G51-BL and G51-CL with a distinctive glare panel to meet diversified environment usage. Designed specifically for the display of high-resolution grayscale images for digital mammography, DR and CR applications.

DR = Digital Radiography
CR = Computed Radiography

Or do radiologists no longer do radiography?


By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 9:56:49 AM , Rating: 2
Those Eizo panels are also black-and-white. 10-bit grayscale resolution in B&W translates to 30-bit color depth in a color monitor.


By s12033722 on 6/14/2006 2:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
There are a number of 10-bit capable LCD manufacturers out there. I work at a digital medical x-ray company, and we have been using 10-bit monochrome LCDs for 4 years. They work very well for viewing radiological images, and some of the newer monitors (Barco, for instance) can even do 10 bit monochrome in a color monitor.


By dev0lution on 6/14/2006 9:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know any radiologists who are still reading film/MRI's/CAT Scans on CRT's still. There's plenty of software (contrast, brightness, greyscale settings) tweaks they can manipulate on the fly to spot things in the image. Those who're using digital imaging systems jumped on the bandwagon years ago. Luckily for me that's how I got my Dell 2001FP =D


Finally, progress
By Darkhaven on 6/14/2006 1:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
This innovation is about time. LCDs have been largely stagnant is color accuracy, grey-scale, black reproduction, and general vibrance. I understand that initially, they needed to focus on speed, so LCDs could compete favorably with CRT monitors, but no LCD up to this point could compete visually with the likes of a Mitsubishi Diamondtron. Innovation seems to be rather hard-fought in this industry, congrats to eCinema. Speaking of which, I wonder what the response rate is?

Off the topic, when is organic EL makings its debut in monitors? It seems to me most of the lacking vibrance, contrast, and uneveness seen in LCDs today is because of that pesky-but-necessary backlights....




RE: Finally, progress
By Googer on 6/14/2006 11:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
I am a Die Hard CRT user, but this news shocked me so much that when I fist heard it I accedentially droped my 100LB CRT on my toes; OUCH!


RE: Finally, progress
By Cullinaire on 6/15/2006 12:10:46 AM , Rating: 2
"Fast 15 millisecond response time ensures the best motion rendering with minimal blur and artifacts.

Our response time is measured by taking the pixel from black to white and then back to black as quickly as possible. This is the only response time measurement method that produces results relevant to video applications."

Not bad, not bad.

I don't think this display supports DVI though...


RE: Finally, progress
By Cullinaire on 6/15/2006 12:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
Misread the specs. Read the "Video Input" section instead of the "Panel Interconnect" section.


RE: Finally, progress
By 9nails on 6/17/2006 1:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
You're right! Not bad, if my math is correct...

1000 milliseconds = 1 second.

0.15 milliseconds = 0.015 second.

1000 \ 0.15 = 66.666...

If the display switches from black to white then to black again in 0.15 milliseconds, this affords it the ability to do that 66.6 times per second. Which could be looked at as being fully capable to display 60hz refresh rate. (Or drawing 60 full frames per second.) This is passable as fluid motion to the human eye.

(It's argued that 72 fps is the magic number where video becomes flicker free. And human eyes are capable of detecting 220 fps. Motion blur and pixel transition assist TV images to appear as flicker free in a lower refresh rate.)



RE: Finally, progress
By ET on 6/15/2006 5:55:10 AM , Rating: 2
I think I remember reading something about organic EL displays having a relatively short lifetime. Meaning you can get dead pixels after a while.


resolution problem still remains
By Kalakissa on 6/14/2006 2:28:02 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder when they'll come up with an LCD technology that has as small "pixels" as a CRT has, so it could be used with non-native resolutions without ugly scaling artifacts... Oh well, such thing would still propably cost at least four times the price of a comparable CRT anyway, so I'll stick with the big old tubes for now :)




RE: resolution problem still remains
By Trisped on 6/14/2006 2:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think CRTs actually have pixels. They probably just have layers of radiation sensitive stuff that reacts depending on the wavelength of the particle gun shooting it.

You would have to look that up and check, maybe wikipedia or howstuffworks or something.


By melgross on 6/14/2006 4:28:01 PM , Rating: 3
They either have dots, or in the case of Trinitrom tubes, vertical lines of phosphor.


By dream caster on 6/16/2006 9:33:28 AM , Rating: 2
There is one, several years old; I kind of remember it is worth about US$ 30,000. I think it is a General Electric product designed specially for medical imaging.


Point of Picture?
By kaoken on 6/14/2006 2:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
What's the point of the picture if our monitors don't even support the technology?




I'm not a believer yet
By phatboye on 6/14/2006 2:34:16 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not going to believe any of these claims until I see the result's with my own eyes. These claims sound to far fetched for me to believe and I have a good feeling they are.

But I must add that I am glad to see improvements in LCD technology. Maybe one day when LCDs surpass CRTs I'll make that switch to LCD technology.


RE: I'm not a believer yet
By mpeny on 6/14/2006 3:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
They are not. They where demo'd in NAB of this year.

This product is targeted for film and video professionals working with HD and film.


how many?
By jmke on 6/14/2006 1:12:02 PM , Rating: 3
How many of your children do you have to sell for one of these? What will be the price of this technology, if its 100x the cost of a 21" High Quality CRT, it's certainly not worth the extra cost.




RE: how many?
By WelshBloke on 6/14/2006 5:30:05 PM , Rating: 4
^ 'starts breeding now'


Like its the first high quality LCD!!!!!!
By gudodayn on 6/14/2006 9:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
High quality LCDs have always been around....its the cost that keeps it slient as!!!

A 21 inch (20" viewable) Mitsubishi Diamondtron tube CRT can be had for $350

Or if you like Sony, a 21 inch (20" viewable) Trinitron tube CRT can be had for $400.

I liked to know how much is one of these so called "high dynamic range LCD" costs.....at a comaparable 20 inch size that is.




RE: Like its the first high quality LCD!!!!!!
By Gooberslot on 6/14/2006 11:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
Where? I thought Sony and Mitsubishi stopped making AG tubes.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 3:56:21 PM , Rating: 3
They have...you have to purchase used, refurb, or overrun monitors.


!!!!
By cciesquare on 6/14/2006 6:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
30,000:1

<rubs eyes> Holly cow batman.




RE: !!!!
By Xavian on 6/14/2006 8:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
so when a picture of the Sun comes on this new TV im gonna be blinded by it? :)


RE: !!!!
By KaerfSusej on 6/21/2006 1:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, with the absolutely perfect display, yes, but that would be impossible. The brightness of something can be infinite (ex: the Sun, 2 Suns, 100000 Suns...), but the darkness is limited to 0.


one more goal to go
By grimdeath on 6/14/2006 1:29:20 PM , Rating: 4
now we just have to make the LCD price to quality ratio get a little closer to what CRTs are. I can buy a $200 monitor that does everything I need to do (digital imaging, photography work, games, etc) but the nearest comparable LCD is MUCH higher priced.

until this is somehow resolved im sticking to what works best for me even if i lose a bit of desk space :P




Perhaps a variant of this tech?
By Howard on 6/14/2006 6:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
www.brightsidetech.com




RE: Perhaps a variant of this tech?
By Lakku on 6/14/2006 8:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't see you posted about it already. :-p Sorry.


Hm. Interesting. Price?
By pyrosity on 6/15/2006 6:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
If what I have read about HDR LCDs in the past (http://cgw.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cf...)
is any indication, these kinds of displays are going to cost an arm and a leg and then some. SED technology sounds like a much more viable consumer replacement of LCD that surpasses CRT display capabilities.

I know it's been mentioned in the comments, but here's a link for some reading on SED:
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/sedtech.html




RE: Hm. Interesting. Price?
By KaerfSusej on 6/21/2006 1:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
What's the point of the picture?
By mechwarrior1989 on 6/20/2006 11:08:29 AM , Rating: 2
Cause that picture doesn't even look like an actual product, more like an artist's rendition. Plus my LCD can't even display a bajillion colors so it's looking like any other image that I've seen.




By rrsurfer1 on 6/20/2006 3:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
The point is there is a hot redhead being displayed. That is all. Oh and I think theres some newfangled display technology being used, but meh.

:)


chick
By sixth on 6/14/2006 2:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
that chick is mighty tasty though...nice marketing there, reminds me of one of those college girls from my past classes :-) haha




Pricing
By Soviet Robot on 6/14/2006 4:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
30,000 contrast ratio? Are you sure that's not the price? ;)




The irony
By mindless1 on 6/14/2006 10:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
The ironic part is that if you tell the average person, "this is not as good because of bits and contrast and ____", they'll insist they then know something even if they can't pick out the difference when looking.

When they are looking, what do they tend to do instead? Prefer the image that has excessive contrast and saturation instead of the one that was more accurate. Greyscale preception be damned, they want it all to look a little more like a cartoon.




I find it quite hilarious
By JamanOne on 6/15/2006 2:59:01 AM , Rating: 2
You must must admit. This is funny. Here is an article with a picture that you have to enlarge to see how fantastic the colours look on this television, but what if my pc monitor was not so good? Would the picture still look good? It's the same thing when they advertise televisions when you're watching. Hmm! This looks great! What a lot of cobblers!




pr0n!
By pr0nbot on 6/14/06, Rating: 0
RE: pr0n!
By johnsonx on 6/14/06, Rating: 0
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles
A Better HDMI Standard On the Way
June 13, 2006, 2:32 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki