This looks sweet.

Maybe I should hold off on buying that new LCD.

Better picture, uses less power, cheaper... I wonder what the downsides are. That said, if it gave me and everyone in a 2 mile radius cancer I'd still want one.

I wonder how it will stack up against an oLED panel? Those are supposed to equal CRTs (which are STILL the champs of good-looking images) and will be cheaper, consume less power, and perhaps most importantly, be paper-thin. (well, with framing behind the panel to keep its shape)

Still, it will be good to actually have a flat-panel for a display, rather than sticking with a CRT, which I still do.

YES! My family is looking for a new television, so this actually might mean something for us....
This is cool/good news.

^ You might be waiting about a year then

No rush.

Crts champs of good images? Don't know what kind of crappy LCDs you've been looking at...

Or what kind of crappy CRTs /you/ have been looking at?

Anyone that thinks crt is the king of image quality quite honestly has no idea what they're talking about.

I blame CRT for my -2.75 vision.

He's right. High end CRTs have far better gamut for the price. You need to pay at least $1,500 to get a good wide gamut LCD. And even then it's tough to challenge old high end CRTs from the likes of Sony. Too bad they don't make those anymore.


Worthless.

If SED pans out, it'll replace LCDs in no time. Cheap, far better image quality. Not quite as small, but consumes less power.

I love the fact that in tv discussions nobody ever mentions DLP technology.

If more people bought a DLP instead of a nice little flat lcd or plasma, there wouldn't be this kind of ignorance about price and image quality in HDTV discussions.

I do believe my old NEC FE950+BK had a better picture than any LCD I have owned/seen to date. Then again, I could be wrong.

NEC is coming out with some new LCD towards the beginning of next year that will cover something like 92% of the gamut, and I think only then will LCDs have better color production that CRTs.

LCDs have only just begun to approach the wide gamut available with CRTs. Do you even know what gamut is, film major boy?

LCDs provide a sharper image, inferior viewing angle, inferior color depth and inferior gamut. Oh, and inferior response time. Sure, you can shell out $800 for a nice Samsung that alleviates most of those problems, certainly for casual use, but only recently did real high end LCDs for professional graphics use become available. At least, available at a decent price. NEC has one for $1,500 that I would be eying except I don't have that kind of money.

Bottom line is that in concept, LCD technology is superior to CRT technology. But CRTs still have a leg up because they've been around for sixty years. LCDs for use as color graphic displays...not so long.

6-bit per color is 16.2 million colors, which you'll find on some LCDs

Wait, 12 bits per pixel or 12 bits per channel?

I don't quite get it. I might be too safely under the rock, but for 6 bits to have 16 million colours, you would need four channels. What is the fourth basic colour? With the traditional three colours and 12 bits per channel it would produce 68 billion colours. That's quite a crazy colour depth, alright.

OK listen carefully. DLP!

I'm not arguing in favor of LCD because I don't prefer it. I am arguing in favor of DLP.

Actually it's 6-bit plus dithering. They take two colors and switch em rapidly to get another color. So you can tell those panels by the 16.2 million colors, and the true 8-bit panels by the 16.7 million colors.

Oh, well you should be more clear. In that case, yes, DLP is better. But the price of a projector and a quality screen isn't worth it to most people. Also I was thinking of imaging work, where having a projector isn't exactly convenient.

Ho...

I don't have a dlp projector. I have a tv with one inside it.

Specificity is good. :saddowns: