Cheap(er), small(er) HD sets: When?

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 |

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?

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:

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.