TVs in the 21st Century.
Alastair
I have come to the conclusion that CRT is now antiquated technology, and I'm
wondering exactly what I should be buying.
I'm currently weighing up the LCD panel and LCD projector options.
Unfortunately, I'm on a tight budget so the solution would have to fall
within the range of $1000 - $2000. 17" would be the minimum screen size that
I would accept, but obviously the bigger the better. It is also noteworthy
that I will be using the TelstraClear TV service, so I assume that I will be
needing only RCA inputs, rather than a TV tuner as such.
My first question is that I have noticed that products described as LCD TVs
are significantly more expensive than products decribed as LCD monitors. For
example, on Ascent's web site, a ViewSonic 17" TV is about $2000 while a
decent ViewSonic 17" monitor is about $1200. Why is this? I would have
thought that the only difference would be that one would have a TV tuner and
the other would not.
My second question is whether it is common for LCD monitors to have analogue
(RCA) inputs as well as VGA. The ViewSonic VP171 on Ascent is described as
having 'multiple digital/analogue inputs'. Is this what I'm looking for?
My third question is whether an LCD projector would be a good option. With
projectors as cheap as $2000 now, it seems like an incredibly cheap way of
getting a huge screen. What's the catch? Are there any major disadvantages
to buying one of these cheap projectors?
Any comments or advice would be greatfully received.
--
Regards, Alastair.
Christchurch, New Zealand
www.alastair.net.nz
My reply to address is low priority and responses may be delayed.
Craig Shore
>My third question is whether an LCD projector would be a good option. With
>projectors as cheap as $2000 now, it seems like an incredibly cheap way of
>getting a huge screen. What's the catch? Are there any major disadvantages
>to buying one of these cheap projectors?
a. Lamp lifetime, they're expensive to replace
b. Contrast ratio. The cheap ones don't show black very black. But for a cheap
one those Epson ones (DSE) aren't rated too badly from what i've seen. Do your
own research though!
Daver
LCD monitors are small in size and will generally not have inputs for video
just vga and possibly DVI (digital).
LCD TVs will also be small in size and like you say chew thru $2000 for just
a 17inch screen. Its actually hard to believe you'd consider a image size of
17inch while at the same time considering projectors with a 60-100inch
image.
For the budget you're looking at, a 29-32" Widescreen CRT TV would seem to
be the best option. Even though you say this is antiquated technology your
budget doesn't seem to allow for much more. Anyway despite being "antiquated
technology" it is benchmark other technologies still aspire to.
Alastair" <ala...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:10810633...@kyle.snap.net.nz...
boffin
"Divine" <notdivinese...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.04.08.20.30.782967@TRACKING...
> On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:21:25 +1200, Alastair wrote:
>
> > Well, the time has rolled around for me to look at buying a new TV.
However,
> > I have come to the conclusion that CRT is now antiquated technology, and
I'm
> > wondering exactly what I should be buying.
>
>
> If it's for anything which requires fast screen refresh rates, or if it's
> for video editing or graphical design work, then you want a good CRT
> monitor.
But don't tell any of the vidiots who use Apple 23" Cinema Displays with
Final Cut Pro or Avid for editing online TV programmes.
Uncle StoatWarbler
> Well, the time has rolled around for me to look at buying a new TV.
> However, I have come to the conclusion that CRT is now antiquated
> technology, and I'm wondering exactly what I should be buying.
Stick with a CRT for the moment.
LCDs aren't cheap enough to be worthwhile _yet_ and the basic
manufacturing process has so many problems it's unlikely prices will fall
quickly (supply is currently way outstripping demand, which is also
keeping them higher than might otherwise be expected)
As noted elsewhere, projectors in these price ranges aren't usually
daylight viewable, nor are rear-projection TVs and plasma are more
expensive still, with short lifespans to boot.
OLED is the potential great saviour, but it's taking significantly longer
than expected to get them running in larger sizes (it's significantly more
profitable to produce phone screens than TV/Monitor ones...)
Uncle StoatWarbler
>>OLED is the potential great saviour, but it's taking significantly
>>longer than expected to get them running in larger sizes (it's
>>significantly more profitable to produce phone screens than TV/Monitor
>>ones...)
>
> And ONLY a 2 year life span, that is why they are fitted to Cell Phones,
> as its assumed that you dump your cell phone after 2 years..
If the oleds are cheap enough a short lifespan doesn't matter - and an
OLED screen could easily be 1/10 the price of LCD (That's still cheaper
than CRT)
I'm well aware of the 10,000 hour limitation on blue - but it's already 4
times that anyway. It just needs to be 100,000 hours to be saleable for
TV, or the screen needs to be cheap/interchangable.
Hell, I used to change exciter every week on certain HF transmitters.
Cheap russian junk which only lasted 1/2 as long as the more expensive
USA-made valves - but the cost was 10c each, vs $5...
Nicholas Sherlock
> Plus have just seen a ADD for a CMV CT-723 has 16ms pixel response
> and a 3 year Zero Pixel warrantee.
I wonder who is offering that garuntee, since my CMV CT-722A (the non-DVI
version of that monitor) has a minimum 8 deads pixels before replacement.
Excellent response time, though!
Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock
IRO
"Alastair" <ala...@mail.com> wrote:
> Well, the time has rolled around for me to look at buying a new TV. However,
> I have come to the conclusion that CRT is now antiquated technology, and I'm
> wondering exactly what I should be buying.
CRTs may be around for a while yet, there was an interesting development
announced in the last few weeks of a mirror surface behind the phosphors
that is transparent to the electron beam(s) but reflective to light lost
backward into the tube. Offered around 40% increase in brightness with
no increase in power, heat or wear (as I recall).
$2000 can buy you a helluva nice wide screen CRT TV but only a crappy
alternative. You'd be better to leave the step up to new technology
until your next buying cycle in 5-8 years.
------
~IRO
Why MacOSX? Because it was easier to make the dreaded
Unix user-friendly than to try to fix Windows.
Alastair Foster
Thanks for all the comments. I'm still not entirely comfortable with
CRT due to their lack of portability and the amount of space they take
up, but it looks as if it's going to be the most desirable option.
Based on the advice I've received here, it looks as though I should
probably buy a cheap (sub $1000) CRT TV and use it until OLED becomes
more affordable and mainstream.
Thanks again.
Mutlley
Iro took the words out of my mouth. Stick with CTR at present. Maybe
move to something better if HDTV ever shows sign of birth in this
country..
Richard
for
> this year is that LCD Monitors will out sell CRT's.
>
> LCD all ready have fast pixel switching and they don't need fast refresh
rates
> as they do now work like a CRT, a CRT is Scanned a LCD is Displayed..
No LCD I have seen has colours even from the top to the bottom till you are
several metres away so there is little variance in angle you are looking at,
and none I have seen are good enough to watch a movie in a dark room, which
to me is a basic requirement of a monitor used as a TV
Craig Sutton
"Joy" <j...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:4070...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Plasma would suit you better. But there didn't seem to be very many
> available in NZ when I was last there.
>
Most Plasma are very low resolution
> Also, NZ hasn't taken the plunge and converted to digital TV.
NZ has had digital tv for years its called Sky.TV
> They will
> have to eventually - the studios should be progressively converting to
> digital, if they haven't already. Then it is only a simple matter of
> transmitting in digital too.
Not quite that easy
Patrick Dunford
> Well, the time has rolled around for me to look at buying a new TV. However,
> I have come to the conclusion that CRT is now antiquated technology, and I'm
> wondering exactly what I should be buying.
>
> I'm currently weighing up the LCD panel and LCD projector options.
> Unfortunately, I'm on a tight budget so the solution would have to fall
> within the range of $1000 - $2000. 17" would be the minimum screen size that
> I would accept, but obviously the bigger the better. It is also noteworthy
> that I will be using the TelstraClear TV service, so I assume that I will be
> needing only RCA inputs, rather than a TV tuner as such.
>
> My first question is that I have noticed that products described as LCD TVs
> are significantly more expensive than products decribed as LCD monitors. For
> example, on Ascent's web site, a ViewSonic 17" TV is about $2000 while a
> decent ViewSonic 17" monitor is about $1200. Why is this? I would have
> thought that the only difference would be that one would have a TV tuner and
> the other would not.
>
> My second question is whether it is common for LCD monitors to have analogue
> (RCA) inputs as well as VGA. The ViewSonic VP171 on Ascent is described as
> having 'multiple digital/analogue inputs'. Is this what I'm looking for?
>
> My third question is whether an LCD projector would be a good option. With
> projectors as cheap as $2000 now, it seems like an incredibly cheap way of
> getting a huge screen. What's the catch? Are there any major disadvantages
> to buying one of these cheap projectors?
Basically they have a feeble output. This certainly applies to the cheap
Sanyo the Warehouse was selling a little while back.
pete
> On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:40:10 +0200, Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
>
>> Hell, I used to change exciter every week on certain HF transmitters.
>> Cheap russian junk which only lasted 1/2 as long as the more expensive
>> USA-made valves - but the cost was 10c each, vs $5.
>
> Actually, the Russian valves sounded much better value, and lasted
> proportionally very much longer given the massive difference in price.
>
> Divine
But became in short supply every time there was a space launch about to
happen (a guy I worked with became wrapped up in tube lore, bought all the
magazines and so on, I read the mags and can waffle semi knowlegeably
about Tim De Paravinci and his Yoshino amps, hand woulnd silver wire
transformers, etc)
boffin
> Where is Tech TV?
Telstra Saturn cable
Uncle StoatWarbler
> Thanks for all the comments. I'm still not entirely comfortable with
> CRT due to their lack of portability and the amount of space they take
> up, but it looks as if it's going to be the most desirable option.
Space is the prime issue for why I'm considering a LCD TV. Anything larger
than 14" takes up sp much space in my current lounge the cats complain
about not being able to be swung freely anymore.
Uncle StoatWarbler
>> Actually, the Russian valves sounded much better value, and lasted
>> proportionally very much longer given the massive difference in price.
Indeed.
> But became in short supply every time there was a space launch about to
> happen
Not for us. Even when ZLB shut down there were still about 5000 807s left
in the store.
Aaron Lawrence
> I have come to the conclusion that CRT is now antiquated technology, and I'm
> wondering exactly what I should be buying.
It's not antiquated; maybe just starting on it's way out.
> My first question is that I have noticed that products described as LCD TVs
> are significantly more expensive than products decribed as LCD monitors. For
> example, on Ascent's web site, a ViewSonic 17" TV is about $2000 while a
> decent ViewSonic 17" monitor is about $1200. Why is this?
A rip off because they are perceived as luxury or high end products. As
you say it should be about $100 more than a monitor.
> My second question is whether it is common for LCD monitors to have analogue
> (RCA) inputs as well as VGA.
No. You want composite inputs, and few monitors have those, because they
are not as good a quality as straight RGB, require extra circuitry (to
convert from combined signal, into separate RGB), and are no use for
computers.
> The ViewSonic VP171 on Ascent is described as
> having 'multiple digital/analogue inputs'. Is this what I'm looking for?
No. The analogue they refer to is the RGB (DB15 connector) that PCs
normally use. The digital is DVI (digital video interface) which takes
data direct from a PC in digital form (extremely high speed!), and
therefore should be even better quality than RGB. DVI is fairly common
on LCD monitors and new video cards, and is slowly showing up elsewhere,
such as DVD players and projectors.
> My third question is whether an LCD projector would be a good option. With
> projectors as cheap as $2000 now, it seems like an incredibly cheap way of
> getting a huge screen. What's the catch? Are there any major disadvantages
> to buying one of these cheap projectors?
For this much, you could try the Infocus X1 projector, but you should
try it first to see if you or your friends have trouble with the screen.
Some people apparently see colour flickering.
Most of the home theatre projectors are low light, so only look really
good in almost complete darkness. This keeps the contrast up, but means
you wouldn't want to watch e.g. during daylight.
Myself, it I got a projector, it would be IN ADDITION to a normal TV,
which I would use for daily TV, etc.
--
aaronl at consultant dot com
For every expert, there is an equal and
opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Uncle StoatWarbler
>> My first question is that I have noticed that products described as LCD
>> TVs are significantly more expensive than products decribed as LCD
>> monitors. For example, on Ascent's web site, a ViewSonic 17" TV is
>> about $2000 while a decent ViewSonic 17" monitor is about $1200. Why is
>> this?
>
> A rip off because they are perceived as luxury or high end products. As
> you say it should be about $100 more than a monitor.
LCD yields are currently running at or under 2% (yes, TWO percent) for
TV-size (17" or larger) displays with acceptable dead pixel ratios.
That makes them _very_ expensive to produce. They also require some fairly
esoteric materials:
Transparent electrodes.
Fish oil (!)
Special rabbit felt brushes which wear out quickly.
The same production lines can turn out phone screens with 80% yields (only
one screen would be tossed in the same amount of real estate as a TV
screen.)
>> My second question is whether it is common for LCD monitors to have
>> analogue (RCA) inputs as well as VGA.
>
> No. You want composite inputs, and few monitors have those, because they
> are not as good a quality as straight RGB, require extra circuitry (to
> convert from combined signal, into separate RGB), and are no use for
> computers.
Every so often I see LCD monitors with tuners and composite inputs being
flogged for about $100 more than a basic LCD display, but they usually go
off the supplier's books as quickly as they appeared.
Looking a bit harder, I found these monitor/TV combos
LG LG1510 (15" D-sub, RCA comp, S-video, tuner)
Iiyama PLC171WT (17" widesceen, as above)
Video7 LTV17D (17", Tuner + SCART)
These are all around NZ$1200. There are bigger models and other brands,
but they get very expensive very quickly.
LCD TVs won't last as long as CRT. Our experience is 5-6 years maximum
before the image is unacceptably degraded (black fades to grey), so
comments about OLEDs and Plasma can be extended here too.
pete
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:53:27 +1200, pete wrote:
>
>> But became in short supply every time there was a space launch about to
>> happen (a guy I worked with became wrapped up in tube lore, bought all the
>> magazines and so on, I read the mags and can waffle semi knowlegeably
>> about Tim De Paravinci and his Yoshino amps, hand woulnd silver wire
>> transformers, etc)
>
> So you'd probably be able to comment on Williamson Amplifiers with their
> hand-wound output transformers...
>
> Divine
I said "waffle" - I ddn't say I knew what I was talking about :-)
pete
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:34:48 +1200, pete wrote:
>
>>> So you'd probably be able to comment on Williamson Amplifiers with their
>>> hand-wound output transformers...
>>
>> I said "waffle" - I ddn't say I knew what I was talking about :-)
>
> Personally, I don't know much about the advantages of one particular valve
> over any other of the same generic type.
>
> What I do know is that Williamson Amplifiers using authentic parts sound
> fantastic!
>
> Divine
Ach, you're making me jealous. totally deaf on one side, and a 1 khz
ceiling on the other means I dont hear much sound at all, let alone
fantastic sound.