1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How long until affordable 1080p displays?

Discussion in 'TVs' started by Goose74, Jan 18, 2005.

  1. Goose74

    Goose74
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Messages:
    805
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Romsey
    Ratings:
    +12
    Question in the title
    Just wondered if anyone knows something I dont - seems for HD the only affordable option at the moment is a 720p display?
     
  2. Dutch

    Dutch
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    North Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +281
    I guess you don't class the £5000 Sharp 45GD1 as affordable then? ;) :) At the current rate of price reductions, I'd expect a similar display to be at the £3000 level in a couple of years.

    Steve
     
  3. Bob Todd

    Bob Todd
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,080
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +373
    The sharp 45 will drop really quick samsung have just released a 20" OLED screen with a contrast ratio of 5000:1, this rapes LCD.
     
  4. HD_King

    HD_King
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Auckland, NZ
    Ratings:
    +0
    Would you have any links about this 20" OLED screen? Is it for sale to the public, or only a prototype?
     
  5. Goose74

    Goose74
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Messages:
    805
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Romsey
    Ratings:
    +12
    Yeah I guess Im thinking under 2k at least - ideally a Panasonic PTAE1000!
     
  6. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,080
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +681
    The two larger Apple Cinema displays are capable of displaying 1920x1080, and the smaller one is only slightly less sharp (1050 lines ISTR)

    These can be fed with HD signals - and are in quite widespread use in HD edit suites etc. as low cost HD displays.
     
  7. Goose74

    Goose74
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Messages:
    805
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Romsey
    Ratings:
    +12
    Stephen - that is a very good point - I hadnt even considered the apple displays since Im a PC user - hmm
     
  8. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,080
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +681
    Some of the Sony widescreen LCD PC displays are also capable of resolutions of the 1920x1080 order AIUI.

    They may be a bit "laggy" for TV use - but not hugely so. They are also quite small in TV terms - but the larger ones are approaching "living room" TV size for Europeans.
     
  9. Quickbeam

    Quickbeam
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    By all accounts OLEDs should wipe the floor with plasma as well. Here's the press release for those who missed it.

    What I find particularly interesting is the comment that "the OLED uses Amorphous Silicon (a-Si) technology; thus can be mass-produced within Samsung's existing TFT-LCD lines."

    Unfortunately lifespan is still an issue with OLEDs: 10,000 hours vs 30,000-50,000 hours on other screen types.
     
  10. Rob20

    Rob20
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,656
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +381
    I remember working for John Lewis 4 years ago in the Audio % TV department where they had a 42" Philips plasma (480p) that was £7,500 including stand. These days you could pick up the equivelent tv for £2,000 or less. I think it's possible plasma/lcd technology may well be replaced in the future by one of the 5 or more new tche screens. LED, LCOS, SED etc etc. The quicker 1920 by 1080p becomes the standard the better imo. Imagine watching sports in 1080p50 rather than 575i50. :)

    Just like 'farenheit 451' predicted, we'll have tv screens that take up a whole wall soon. 2020 at the latest. :laugh:
     
  11. Mad Maximus

    Mad Maximus
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    The most affordable 1080p displays in the near-term will be Chinese made LCD flat panels. Westinghouse has announced 37/42/47 inch 1080p models, which may be available this year in the US starting at $2500.
    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050106/lath011_1.html

    The quality of these panels will not match Sharp, but they will be half the price. Other vendors will also offer similar LCDs in the coming year.
     
  12. Rob20

    Rob20
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,656
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +381
    £5,000 is perhaps affordable for home cinema buffs, but I would assume most people on here either couldn't afford to spend that much, or couldn't justify spending so much on a tv when they have a mortgage to pay etc. IMO, an affordable price for the mainstream consumer would be sub £1,000. Still a long way off. Personally I would be looking to spend no more than £1,500 on a tv, £2,000 max. I'd rather wait for the price of technolgy to fall than pay a massive premium to have it now. Especially as there are no 1080p sources yet.
     
  13. joys_R_us

    joys_R_us
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    People used to pay much less for their cars than they do nowadays. So why cant we accept the idea of having to pay more for a lot of more screen estate/quality. I think people will be prepared to pay 1500+ pounds when they see the difference compared to their current boxes..
     
  14. Rob20

    Rob20
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,656
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +381
    Non AV enthusiasts often have a ceiling in terms of how much they are prepared to spend on a new tv that has no bearing on quality. They may be looking to spend a set amount, (say £1,000), on a tv and will see what's available within that amount. For this group they will have to wait until the technolgy falls into their price range.

    AV enthusiasts on the other hand, will look towards specific products and technology and have a greater understanding of of the value of more expensive products. They will be prepared to pay a premium for new technology. As great as the new hi-def disc formats will be visually/sonically, the actual content of the films are the same as on dvd. A crap film is still a crap film. Is a book any more enjoyable to read in glossy hardback than in paper back. The story is still the same. That's how some people may see the difference between their crts sets, and hi-def flatscreens. Though certain people see the benefit of the more expensive hardback as do people see the point spending £5,000 on the latest large flat panel h-def screen.

    The difference between cars and tvs, is that a car is an essential purcahse for most people, (for work, social etc), whereas a tv is a luxury, non essential purchase. In some sectors of the car market the price of cars has fallen in real and actual terms. Compare the price of the Ford Fiesta today to what it would have cost 5 years ago. Don't have the figures to compare but bought a new Fiesta 5 years ago and have been comparing prices over the years, (Ford send me details of new offers regularly). People know that when new technolgy is released the quality isn't always as good as it could be, and that it will be excessively priced in order to cover R&D costs. Therefore, if you're not bothered about being at the 'bleeding edge' of technolgy your better of waiting. Cheaper prices and better products.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To put it simply, it all comes down to economics and choice. If you assume most people have a finite resource as regards money, people then have to make economic decisions as to how they spend that finite resource. A tv is more important to some than others. This in part determines how much they invest in a tv. Therefore different incomes and preferrences result in a difference of opinion as to what is an affordable price for a given product.
     
  15. Alistair_M

    Alistair_M
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    235
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +9
    I've got a few samples of high def at 1920 x 1080.

    I've seen several secondhand 21" crt pc monitors on ebay.
    Some claim resolutions higher than 1920x1080.

    Anyone tried using such a monitor to look at high def movies?

    eg:

    http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3696&item=5164723583&rd=1

    It the moment I look at high def on my 19" pc at 1280x1020 but I'd like to see what it looks like at the proper resolution.
     
  16. Goose74

    Goose74
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Messages:
    805
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Romsey
    Ratings:
    +12
    I also watch Hi Def on my 19inch monitor I would like to upgrade - just so I dont have to scale the image. The highest I can go upto is 1600x1200

    That monitor looks ok - are there many like that on ebay?
     
  17. beeblebrox12

    beeblebrox12
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't know why you people are wasting time with HDTV on PC monitors. If you don't have at least 42'' display, don't even bother. It's like DVD-Audio on $20 PC speakers. Wonder what that would sound like? :)
     
  18. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,080
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +681
    Not true. I've watched HD on 28" and 34" CRT based direct view monitors - and it has still looked better than SD sources on the same monitor. These were reasonable spec screens. The quality at shorter viewing distances was significantly higher than current plasma and LCD direct view displays.

    Not all of us have space for 42" screens in our living rooms - and there are still quality benefits on smaller screens.
     
  19. Alistair_M

    Alistair_M
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    235
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +9
    Do these 21" crt monitors actually do the 1920 x 1080 resolutions to view movies at full res?

    I've seen several high def movies on my 19" pc screen that look fantastic. I'd like to buy a 21" crt if it does do 1920 x 1080 as a usable resolution.
     
  20. Quickbeam

    Quickbeam
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I wonder if beeblebrox12's comments have anything to do with the fact that he has a DLP TV, and as far as I know you can't get one smaller than 44"! I was looking at the 50" Sagem DLP in John Lewis today. It was showing Monsters Inc. on DVD, and it blew the plasma and LCD competition out of the water. Admittedly the competition were mostly using RF composite feeds, and animation is much less prone to artefacts than regular video or film.;)
     
  21. Goose74

    Goose74
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Messages:
    805
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Romsey
    Ratings:
    +12
    Alistair - it depends on the model. Some can go higher than 1920 while others can only do 1600x1200. Having said that I dont know what 1920 would look like on a 21" since 1600 on my 19" is pretty tiny!
     
  22. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,070
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +669
    Total rubbish.

    A 21" 4:3 computer monitor 3 feet away gives the same apparent picture size (i.e. occupies the same fraction of your visual field) as a 50" 16:9 plasma screen sitting 8 feet away.

    In fact, you can't quite sit 8 feet from a 50" plasma screen because the dots are too big.

    The resolving power of the eye is roughly 1 minute of arc (1/60th of a degree). So that means the distance between adjacent pixels should make an angle of less than that at the eye - if it's more, you'll see separate dots rather than a smooth picture.

    So if you have (say) a 50" plasma screen (that's about 43.5" wide horizontally) with a horizontal resolution of 1366 pixels, that means you should be able to sit about 9 feet from it, but not any closer.

    Something like the Sharp LC45GD1E has a true 1920 pixel horizontal resolution, and a 45" screen (about 39" wide) so you could sit about 6 feet away from that if you wanted (but no closer).

    A 21" 4:3 computer monitor is about 16" wide, so, if it could accurately display 1920 pixels across it you could sit as close as two and a half feet away if you wanted.
     
  23. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    well put, there are some CRT monitors out there that produce some absolutely stunning images, if plasmas got even to within a hairs breath of them, the market would be very different, they don't, nor do LCDs....etc etc We need to look at these new technologies to bridge the gap left with CRT, at the same time we might get 1080p. As a HD user with a HD capable display I remain unconvinced we need much more than 720p for the majority of people. Quality first, then the extra resolution
     
  24. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,070
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +669
    Which ones? :)
     
  25. Chris Muriel

    Chris Muriel
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,126
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +714
    My "Image Vision" is actually a Hitachi CM813ETPlus - rebadged to sell at high prices to businesses.
    It's a 21" PC monitor.
    It produces a stunning picture on Euro 1080 and other HD tests even though it tops out at 1856 x 1392.
    Also looks great with 4:2:2 video (as used by many EBU satellite feeds and with more chroma information in the stream).
    I sit about 3 feet from it and use an ATI Radeon8500LE graphics card with it.
    I preferred the picture on this to one I hooked up temporarily into a friends hi-res plasma panel (via DVI).

    Chris Muriel, Manchester.
     
  26. Rob20

    Rob20
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,656
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +381
    I was in a walkabout pub a while ago watching premiership football/soccer on a massive projection screen. 15 feet at a guess. The picture quality was poor even from a distance. Imagine if the pub had the ability to receive the game at 1080p, (and have the equipment to display it native). Would make a huge difference. Still, I've yet to see 720p or 1080i, let alone 1080p so can't really say whether 1080p is necessary. Perhaps on displays 37" and above!? it is, 32" and below perhaps not!? :confused:
     
  27. beeblebrox12

    beeblebrox12
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm not saying that you won't tell the difference between SD and HD if you had a small screen. Even on cheap PC speakers DVD-Audio will sound better than an MP3, but was it meant to be enjoyed that way?
    Sure, a 21'' WS HD LCD monitor may have all the pixels, but what good is watching LOTR in HD from a chair half a meter away from a PC monitor?
    My comment was more lifestyle related than technical.
     
  28. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,080
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +681
    In broadcast monitoring applications - where picture quality is paramount - CRTs are still the most widespread picture monitoring devices - even for HD.

    Some production galleries use plasmas, projectors or LCDs for production monitoring (not quality critical), and LCDs are becoming widespread in editing applications (though a CRT is usually also present for quality monitoring) - but lighting and camera operators still use CRTs (even on location) - as LCDs and Plasmas are still not able to match CRTs for all round picture quality.

    Sure they are getting better - but a good CRT is still hard to beat in absolute terms. They are also the only screens capable of displaying interlaced pictures natively at a decent quality.

    They may weigh a tonne, and cost a bomb, and might not be quite as bright as other displays, but high-end CRTs still win in the quality stakes.
     
  29. rogeralpine

    rogeralpine
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    565
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have an Iiyama 22 inch CRT which cost me 100 quid off ebay which I bought specifically to view HD material. It has a max res of 2048 * 1536 and the image is superb. I've compared the DVD version of a film with a braodcast 1080 image of the same and the latter easily wipes the floor with the DVD image - proof to me that even on a "small" 20 inch (actual viewable area) screen, the differences are plain to see. These are broadcast images as well - "proper" blu-ray/HDDVD sources will hopefully be even better.

    My AE500 does a great job of downscaling such sources - and you can't beat a big screen image - but there is a definite improvement with 1080 images presented natively on my CRT. Of course, a 25k 1080p PJ would be ideal - but for obvious reasons I'm not in the market for one of those just yet.

    If you have the opportunity to acquire such a CRT monitor, I'd recommend it - especially if you can get one so cheaply. The one I bought is still listed - http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3696&item=5143873164
     
  30. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,070
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +669
    Then why are you attempting to illustrate it with a purely technical analogy?

    The reason why one wouldn't listen to DVD-Audio through cheap PC speakers is because it would sound cr*p: the distortion caused by the speakers would be so bad that there would be no point in bothering with high-quality source material. But this is a wholly inappropriate analogy: playing back a high-definition video stream on a small, high-res, high-quality computer monitor at close range looks exactly the same as playing it on a larger screen farther away - indeed, it may very well look better than playing it on a larger screen farther away.

    Some people won't want to focus on a screen 2 to 3 feet away because their eyes get tired, and others may feel that watching TV is a social activity, and it's difficult for more than one person at a time to watch a small screen comfortably. But neither of these has anything to do with the quality of the image.
     

Share This Page

Loading...