[Loobster]

I monitor this part of the forum because I'm always interested in new technology.

But it seems that news on the new panel technologies is scanty and infrequent. I wonder what the reason for this is? We all want better PQ than current panels provide (especially for SD material). And a lot of us would pay a premium for sets based on better technology.

Most LCDs and plasmas still suffer from issues inherent to those technologies, and lots of users are put off buying a panel until these issues are resolved, or at least minimised to a greater extent.

I'd have expected that panel makers would be more interested in bringing a "market-beating" technology to the consumer rather than ploughing billions into bettering technologies that are only ever going to improve slowly and in small steps due to inherent issues that will never be overcome totally.

Sony seem to be getting closer with OLED but it's still slow progress. SED is on-again-off-again-on-again, and who knows if sets based on it will ever be available as consumer products.

Any thoughts?

[Tejstar]

Well a lot of the manufacturers have a vested interest in current technologues given the amount of money that has gone into R&D, factories, supply chains etc. They are bringing prices of plasmas and LCD's down lower all the time due to economies of scale and therefore any new technology has to compete price wise.

Until they know they can produce these panels at an attractive mass-market price point they will always remain some distance away.

[Loobster]

But newer technologies will always cost more to implement, at first. So meanwhile we are stuck with inferior technologies.

Perhaps the TV makers are confident that LCD and PDP can still be significantly improved.

[NicolasB]

I don't know where you get the idea that any of these technologies can improve standard-definition video. SD is SD; if a new tech looks better in general, there's no way it can possibly improve SD more than it improves HD, and there's no display tech that is any more or less suited to SD than any other (with the possible exception of CRT - certainly no new technology).

The reason these things aren't coming to market is a combination of practicality and price. OLED, for example, has massive problems creating a blue OLED layer that lasts more than a couple of thousand hours. Recent OLED displays have given up even trying use blue OLEDs altogether, instead they use white ones with a blue filter, which may or may not introduce some problems of its own. (We'll see).

The biggest reason, though, is cost. It's pointless to launch a new TV if it costs literally three times as much as an LCD or plasma screen of comparable size. So much money has been invested into LCD and plasma that the costs have plummeted over the past few years and are likely to keep falling. The performance of LCD and plasma continues to improve too - LCD with LED backlights, for example, or Pioneer's latest take on plasma, are both a significant jump ahead of previous tech.

The combination of falling prices and improved quality in the existing technology means it simply isn't economic to make devices using new tech: the price/performance ratio would be so bad no one would buy them. If an SED screen cost three times as much as a Pioneer plasma and wasn't actually much better, would you buy one?

[Loobster]

Originally Posted by NicolasB

a) I don't know where you get the idea that any of these technologies can improve standard-definition video.

b) SD is SD; if a new tech looks better in general, there's no way it can possibly improve SD more than it improves HD, and there's no display tech that is any more or less suited to SD than any other (with the possible exception of CRT - certainly no new technology).

c) OLED, for example, has massive problems creating a blue OLED layer that lasts more than a couple of thousand hours. Recent OLED displays have given up even trying use blue OLEDs altogether, instead they use white ones with a blue filter, which may or may not introduce some problems of its own. (We'll see).

d) The biggest reason, though, is cost. It's pointless to launch a new TV if it costs literally three times as much as an LCD or plasma screen of comparable size.

e) The performance of LCD and plasma continues to improve too - LCD with LED backlights, for example, or Pioneer's latest take on plasma, are both a significant jump ahead of previous tech.

f) The combination of falling prices and improved quality in the existing technology means it simply isn't economic to make devices using new tech: the price/performance ratio would be so bad no one would buy them.

g) If an SED screen cost three times as much as a Pioneer plasma and wasn't actually much better, would you buy one?

a) I didn't say it could. A TV can't "improve" a signal beyond the original transmission. What current TVs do is reproduce it to different degrees of accuracy.

b) I never mentioned HD in particular so not sure where you are going there. No display technology that's more or less suited to SD? What?

CRT is still ahead of all currently available comsumer panel TVs, and PDP beats LCD by a distance at over 37". So I'd say that there's a range of technologies that handle SD with very different degrees of success.

c) That's how I understand it. I still think OLED now has the apportunity to become the next big leap forward.

d) Why? When PDP was first came out, it was far more than 3x the cost of CRT, was it not?

e) Significant? VERY debateable.

f) See d

g) If it wasn't significantly better, of course not. But as these new technologies are supposed to be significantly better, then there may well be a market for them. And if SD material on OLED/SED was much better than a £500 LCD, and costed £1500, yes, I'd certainly consider it.

[ba' heid]

Like loobster I get frustrated at the lack of progress in new technologies.

I remember when I first saw a plasma display - the picture was worse than a cheap arsed crt and it cost £5000. It's only exciting feature was that it could hang on a wall. Early lcd tv's were even mankier and more expensive. However I think the general public are buying into these technologies as a "lifestyle" product first and display second. The displays make a nice feature on a wall and they free up a fair bit of floor space in the average British living room. At least the manafacturers continue to improve these technologies to attract more discerning customers.

I'm amazed at how many people i know who will watch films and shows in the wrong aspect ratio just so it fills up the screen e.g. my Dad has a widescreen crt and watches mostly uk gold and tcm on cable. Uk Gold and tcm transmit in 4:3 but Dad stretches to fill screen. It does not bother him that John Wayne now appears to be a squat 4'5" 300 pounder. My boss at work has a 4:3 tv and watches mostly bbc. BBC transmits mainly in widescreen but boss zooms digi box for 16:9 and the Duke is transformed into 10 foot beanpole - I conclude from this that the non enthusiast has much lower expectations of pq than most of this forums members.

So although people in general are not sure about pq they can be persuaded to buy into a technology for other reasons if the price is right. But to get the volume up and price down the manufacturers need early adopters who will soak up the high price and establish the technology. This obviously happened with pdp and lcd so why not oled or sed?

[NicolasB]

Originally Posted by Loobster

No display technology that's more or less suited to SD? What?

CRT is still ahead of all currently available comsumer panel TVs, and PDP beats LCD by a distance at over 37". So I'd say that there's a range of technologies that handle SD with very different degrees of success.

Then you'd be flat-out wrong.

CRT does, indeed, have some advantages for SD (as I've already mentioned ). The reason is because it's not a fixed-pixel technology.

In the case of CRT projection, particularly, the display has effectively infinite resolution in the horizontal direction, with built-in scaling that is inherent to the display rather than the processing. And the fact that the electron beam is a gaussian spot rather than having sharp edges, and that the scan-lines slightly overlap, effectively gives you some scaling in the vertical direction too.

However, no other display technology that is currently under development (or, in all probability, ever will be) avoids fixed-pixels. Therefore no new technology will be especially suitable for SD.

If you think plasma is inherently superior to LCD for displaying SD images, you are simply wrong. Perceived differences between equivalent LCDs and plasmas are usually the result of the processing electronics rather than the display tech. (Many LCD panels do a terrible job of deinterlacing and have excessive noise reduction, for example). This has nothing to do with LCD versus plasma.

You could perhaps argue that plasma is generally superior to LCD, but there's no distinction between SD and HD in that statement. Plasma tends to have more accurate colours, better contrast ratios, better response times, etc. - but this does not in any way make it "more suitable for SD". The things that make an SD image look bad have nothing to do with the things that distinguish one display technology from another.

Originally Posted by Loobster

Why? When PDP was first came out, it was far more than 3x the cost of CRT, was it not?

But plasma displays have been around since the 1970s. How long it take before the technology became "mainstream"?

On top of that, the reason why plasma and LCD became popular had nothing to do with image quality, it had to with form factor: people wanted big televisions you could hang on the wall. SED and OLED displays do not have any form factor advantage over plasma and LCD, and the average member of the buying public doesn't care about image quality. Good image quality will not make a product sell.

[ba' heid]

Originally Posted by NicolasB

In the case of CRT projection, particularly, the display has effectively infinite resolution in the horizontal direction, with built-in scaling that is inherent to the display rather than the processing. And the fact that the electron beam is a gaussian spot rather than having sharp edges, and that the scan-lines slightly overlap, effectively gives you some scaling in the vertical direction too.

However, no other display technology that is currently under development (or, in all probability, ever will be) avoids fixed-pixels. Therefore no new technology will be especially suitable for SD.

.

Point taken Nic, would there be any advantage to any display type when upscaling SD?

[NicolasB]

Originally Posted by ba' heid

Point taken Nic, would there be any advantage to any display type when upscaling SD?

With the single exception of CRT, I can't see how there could be. What all of these technologies ultimately do is display pixels in different colours. What make one better than another is simply how precisely the pixels in the display can be made to resemble the values supplied by the original signal.

Each tech has different compromises. LCD and plasma, for example, require black lines in between the pixels and subpixels (and the lines are clearly are not part of the original signal). Plasma and DLP work by flashing pixels on and off for set lengths of time rather than by actually changing the brightness of a constantly illuminated pixel. LCOS/SXRD/DILA tends to suffer from colour purity problems, so the pixels' colour response varies across the display. Projection technologies have less-than-perfect geometry. On LCD panels, pixels that are supposed to be black tend to come out grey. And so on.

But ultimately it simply comes down to: "how good a job does the display technology do of producing actual pixels that resemble the ideal ones (as specified by the signal) as closely as possible?" Anything else comes down to differences in image-processing electronics, not inherent differences between the display technologies. The "ideal" arrangement of real-life pixels is the same for each tech, regardless of whether the signal is HD or SD; the only question is which tech gets closest to actually looking like the ideal? And that, again, is independent of whether it's an HD or SD signal.

What makes CRT different is that it doesn't work in pixels. No other display tech does that (or, in all likelihood, ever will).

Edit: Actually, another reason why CRT can look good with standard def signals is that it is possible to display an interlaced signal natively on CRT, which avoids all of the artefacts that tend to result from deintelacing video (as opposed to film) sources. (Although most modern CRT sets don't actually bother; it's only the 50Hz ones that take advantage of this).

[Loobster]

Originally Posted by NicolasB

a) Then you'd be flat-out wrong.

b) However, no other display technology that is currently under development (or, in all probability, ever will be) avoids fixed-pixels. Therefore no new technology will be especially suitable for SD.

c) If you think plasma is inherently superior to LCD for displaying SD images, you are simply wrong.

d) Perceived differences between equivalent LCDs and plasmas are usually the result of the processing electronics rather than the display tech. (Many LCD panels do a terrible job of deinterlacing and have excessive noise reduction, for example).

e) This has nothing to do with LCD versus plasma.

f) Plasma tends to have more accurate colours, better contrast ratios, better response times, etc. - but this does not in any way make it "more suitable for SD".

g) The things that make an SD image look bad have nothing to do with the things that distinguish one display technology from another.

h) the reason why plasma and LCD became popular had nothing to do with image quality, it had to with form factor: people wanted big televisions you could hang on the wall.

i) SED and OLED displays do not have any form factor advantage over plasma and LCD, and the average member of the buying public doesn't care about image quality. Good image quality will not make a product sell.

a) Says you!

b) PQ isn't just about resolution (fixed or otherwise). It's about a plethora of factors that contribute to the final display. Newer technologies will have many advantages over LCD and PDP and hence this will make them more suitable for SD.

c) See A

d) To an extent, yes. But the processing required is different based on inherent characteristics of each technology.

e) It has everything to do with it. Each technology is approaching the job of getting a picture on screen from a different angle, using different technologies. The processes involved are different, leading to different picture characteristics, benefits and problems. That's what the whole LCD/PDP debate is always about.

f) Why doesn't it? SD needs all the help it can get. If the nature of PDP means that in general, you get a better picture, then surely that's what makes it more suitable for SD.

g) See E

h) The reason why LCD/PDP became popular was because the price fell. Form factor was no doubt a factor, but if PDPs were still £10,000 then nobody wold be buying them.

i) I agree to an extent. But as I said earlier, there are those of us that would pay a premium for better technology. A lot of us were retiscent to go backwards by swapping our CRT for a panel, knowing that we were in for lower SD quality. If HD wasn't here, I'd still be watching my Sony Wega.

~~~~~

We could go on like this all week (but we won't).

We also seem to have got rather off-topic.

[LV426]

Originally Posted by Loobster

We....seem to have got rather off-topic.

Yes, we do. And as I have no intention of hosting yet another Plasma vs. LCD "debate" here in the future tech part of the forum, I have to ask you all, please to draw a line under it right here. No last word, no one more thing. Please.