|
|
True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view
sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up by the mask. "Bert Hyman" wrote in message ... Yes, I'm asking you to predict the future. Yes, I know it's probably a silly question, but still ... The area we have allocated for a TV set will accomodate a box the size of a conventional 23" TV set (if such a thing exists. Bigger than a 20" and smaller than a 25" anyway). The space will never get any bigger. The flat-panel HD monitors of that size currently on the market are priced from about $2K and up. I don't see any CRT-based monitors like that at all. So, what are the chances for something of my desired size, but less than, say, $500 in the next few years? -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | |
For instance I bought a new Sony KD-34XBR960 a 34" direct view wide
screen set from Sony for $2199. The set it replaced was the KV-34XBR910 that sold for $2499. The new set is $300 lower in price than last year. I read that most sets loose about $200 per year even though they have more features. If sales really pick up in a year or so I would think even $400 less per year on the $2000 sets would be possible. Another I found out is that when a new set comes out discount internet dealers can't lower the price by maybe $50 after the first month. $50 more the second moth. As the months go by the price is discounted even more. I paid Sony retail as I did not feel like waiting to save $200. hdtvfan Hope my set gets here tomorrow as they promised. On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 00:04:14 -0400, "Curmudgeon" wrote: True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up by the mask. "Bert Hyman" wrote in message .. . Yes, I'm asking you to predict the future. Yes, I know it's probably a silly question, but still ... The area we have allocated for a TV set will accomodate a box the size of a conventional 23" TV set (if such a thing exists. Bigger than a 20" and smaller than a 25" anyway). The space will never get any bigger. The flat-panel HD monitors of that size currently on the market are priced from about $2K and up. I don't see any CRT-based monitors like that at all. So, what are the chances for something of my desired size, but less than, say, $500 in the next few years? -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | |
(Curmudgeon) wrote in
: True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up by the mask. Grumble. So, what's the practical lower size limit for a direct view (CRT) HD monitor? I'm NOT gonna take out walls just to watch TV :-). I suspect that LCD and plasma units are going to stay relatively pricey for a long time. -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | |
True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard
direct view sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up by the mask. Just make the mask smaller :) Sony has a smaller aperture grill so why not a smaller mask? |
|
"Curmudgeon" wrote:
True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up by the mask. Most 19 inch CRT computer monitors can display at 1600 by 1200 or 1.92 million pixels. What am I overlooking? joemooreaterolsdotcom |
We have heard so much about people watching HDTV via their PC on 17"
computer monitor. So it is physically possible to make a small HDTV, but whether it make marketing sense is another story. (Chet Hayes) wrote in message . com... ixjunk (nixjunk) wrote in message ... True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up by the mask. Just make the mask smaller :) Sony has a smaller aperture grill so why not a smaller mask? An even better question may be, at what size monitor does HD not make a significant enough difference in appearance so that most people will notice it? The difference is greatest on large screens, the smaller you go, the less noticeable it is. Is there some monitor size below which HD just doesn't make much difference? |
"Curmudgeon" wrote in message
. .. True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up by the mask. Oh? Then how come computer monitors have been doing it for so long? |
Just make the mask smaller :) Sony has a smaller aperture grill so why not
a smaller mask? An even better question may be, at what size monitor does HD not make a significant enough difference in appearance so that most people will notice it? The difference is greatest on large screens, the smaller you go, the less noticeable it is. Is there some monitor size below which HD just doesn't make much difference? This reminds me of people that say that below an 8x10 print size medium format or even large format film doesn't show any advantages. The truth is even with a 4 inch print the advantages of a larger film is evident. Assuming the actually TV can display a good quality picture on its own then the advantages of HD should be evident even in very small displays. |
Watching TV on a display that small is no longer considered a "group
experience" It wasn't that long ago that a 19-20" was considered to be a living room size set. Not everyone wants a "group experience." Many people simply want an excellent TV so they can watch it in the kitchen or in a small bedroom by themselves. |
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:
Joe Moore wrote: "Curmudgeon" wrote: True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up by the mask. Most 19 inch CRT computer monitors can display at 1600 by 1200 or 1.92 million pixels. What am I overlooking? Watching TV on a display that small is no longer considered a "group experience" It wasn't that long ago that a 19-20" was considered to be a living room size set. I was addressing the practicality of HDTV on a small CRT, not the desirability. I was just saying that if it's possible to produce a 19 inch CRT computer monitor which displays 1600 by 1200, then there is no technical reason why a 23 inch CRT HDTV would be impractical. Which is what the original poster was asking about. Whether the market for such a set would be big enough to make producing it worthwhile is another issue. joemooreaterolsdotcom |
"nixjunk" wrote in message ... True HD isn't practical below a certain size....not in standard direct view sets with shadow masks. You just can't pack 2 million pixels (or 1 million for that matter) into such small spaces when so much real estate is taken up by the mask. Just make the mask smaller :) Sony has a smaller aperture grill so why not a smaller mask? Right. Computer monitors with shadow masks do this all the time. |
Bert Hyman wrote in message ...
Yes, I'm asking you to predict the future. Yes, I know it's probably a silly question, but still ... The area we have allocated for a TV set will accomodate a box the size of a conventional 23" TV set (if such a thing exists. Bigger than a 20" and smaller than a 25" anyway). The space will never get any bigger. Flat panel LCDs are very nice at that size, but costly. They should come down slightly. Another idea is to simply use a regular 4:3 TV fed by component or S-Video cables. You can display HD TV on an SD TV with no problem (it looks a little squished, but once you get used to it...) The benefit is that SD channels look as they should. I have a 10 year old 27" TV upstairs that performs better than my 47" HD downstairs on SD. HD is acceptable, just smaller and slightly squished. I think that for sizes less than 27" (other than LCD or plasma), just get a regular SD (CRT) TV. |
(T. Pascal) wrote in
om: Another idea is to simply use a regular 4:3 TV fed by component or S-Video cables. You can display HD TV on an SD TV with no problem (it looks a little squished, but once you get used to it...) The benefit is that SD channels look as they should. When an HD tuner/receiver downconverts an HD signal to SD, can't it "letterbox" it? Is this a feature on some tuners? -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | |
Bert,
Well I'm curious why you've allocated a specific size space? Have your puchased an entertainment center that allows for a specific size? The first thing you should know about HDTV is that its native format is not as square shape as SDTV (Standard Definiition TV, NTSC). SDTV is 4:3, HDTV is actually broadcast in widescreen format (16:9). This is why you see so many widescreen HDTVs being sold, it's the native format and an HDTV broadcast will fill out the entire screen. Another benefit of a widescreen HDTV is that all DVD players have a 16:9 output option and many movies are formated in 1:85:1 (Academy Flat) widescreen, in which case the movie will fill out the widescreen with no black bars. Now you can buy a 4:3 (non widescreen) HDTVs but the result is you'll be watching everything HD with black bars at the top and bottom. As more HD content becomes available, eventually it will get to a point where you're only using 23 inches of your 27" HDTV, the black bars will also cause burn-in. Now assuming you know all this and you still demand a 4:3 HDTV that will meet your requirements, your best bet is an LCD display. Look at the 20" Sanyo CLT2054. This display is actually "EDTV", but with anything that small it's not going to make much difference if it's EDTV or HDTV, unless youy're going to be sitting less than 3' from the screen. Walmart carries this model for around $700. If you had just a tad more, there is a 32" Sanyo DS32830H which is a direct-view (tube) HDTV with integrated HDTV tunner, it goes for around $600 if you can find it. Bert Hyman wrote in message ... Yes, I'm asking you to predict the future. Yes, I know it's probably a silly question, but still ... The area we have allocated for a TV set will accomodate a box the size of a conventional 23" TV set (if such a thing exists. Bigger than a 20" and smaller than a 25" anyway). The space will never get any bigger. The flat-panel HD monitors of that size currently on the market are priced from about $2K and up. I don't see any CRT-based monitors like that at all. So, what are the chances for something of my desired size, but less than, say, $500 in the next few years? |
|
I was addressing the practicality of HDTV on a small CRT, not the
desirability. I was just saying that if it's possible to produce a 19 inch CRT computer monitor which displays 1600 by 1200, then there is no technical reason why a 23 inch CRT HDTV would be impractical. Which is what the original poster was asking about. Whether the market for such a set would be big enough to make producing it worthwhile is another issue. Of course there would be, just as there is for current small TVsl. Plenty of people have small TVs in their kitchens, garages, extra rooms, etc. |
Now assuming you know all this and you still demand a 4:3 HDTV that
will meet your requirements, your best bet is an LCD display. Look at the 20" Sanyo CLT2054. This display is actually "EDTV", but with anything that small it's not going to make much difference if it's EDTV or HDTV, unless youy're going to be sitting less than 3' from the screen. Walmart carries this model for around $700. If you had just a tad more, there is a 32" Sanyo DS32830H which is a direct-view (tube) HDTV with integrated HDTV tunner, it goes for around $600 if you can find it. The current LCDs all look terrible. The same way an LCD looks with a PC when not operating at its native resolution. Very blurry. |
(JDeats) wrote in
om: Well I'm curious why you've allocated a specific size space? Have your puchased an entertainment center that allows for a specific size? Well, I -suppose you could call our bedroom an "entertainment center" :-) But yes, it's essentially that. Room layout, namely wall, closet & window placement dictate that some things have to go in certain places. We're also just not interested in some behemoth TV, even if it would fit. -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | |
Bert Hyman wrote in message . ..
(T. Pascal) wrote in om: Another idea is to simply use a regular 4:3 TV fed by component or S-Video cables. You can display HD TV on an SD TV with no problem (it looks a little squished, but once you get used to it...) The benefit is that SD channels look as they should. When an HD tuner/receiver downconverts an HD signal to SD, can't it "letterbox" it? Is this a feature on some tuners? It is available, but mine doesn't (appear to have it). Most idiots don't like letterboxing, and would post questions like "How do you get rid of the black bars at the top and bottom?" I was recently at the local store and saw some very inexpensive ($400) 27" widescreen, non-HD CRT sets. That would fit the ticket, except that SD stuff is stretched. When more and more HD material comes out, these sets could be the exact ticket for rooms around the house. |
|
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:02:23 +0000, Joe Moore wrote:
I was addressing the practicality of HDTV on a small CRT, not the desirability. I was just saying that if it's possible to produce a 19 inch CRT computer monitor which displays 1600 by 1200, then there is no technical reason why a 23 inch CRT HDTV would be impractical. Which is what the original poster was asking about. Whether the market for such a set would be big enough to make producing it worthwhile is another issue. Right, not much market for an small but expensive, high-resolution wide-screen CRT. LCD's are taking-over the "small but good" sector of the market. |
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 09:21:12 +0000, nixjunk wrote:
This reminds me of people that say that below an 8x10 print size medium format or even large format film doesn't show any advantages. The truth is even with a 4 inch print the advantages of a larger film is evident. Assuming the actually TV can display a good quality picture on its own then the advantages of HD should be evident even in very small displays If you're close-enough to it to resolve the details, certainly. A 100" screen that is 10' away looks exactly as large, and "requires" exactly the same resolution, as a 10" screen that is 1' away. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com