![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
I'm not talking about product popularity, only about the technology itself. LCDs are a complicated technology, expensive to manufacture and with few possibilities for signficant improvement. CRTs are a prime example of a relatively simple and elegant design, which has allowed them to exist for many decades, and they're now evolving into SED, which is just like a CRT, only with more than a single electron gun for each colour (meaning flat panels, and even lower power usage than current plasma and LCD displays). SED (and FED and OLED) displays will replace LCDs completely in the next ten years. CRTs will live on as SED.Sparrow_69 said:
Elledan said:
Elledan said:
>Elledan said:I love how throughout the article the author points out that only CRTs are truly 'general purpose'.
So in summary, with LCDs you either get:
- fast pixel response time (TN),
- good viewing angles and contrast ratio (MVA, PVA) or
- accurate (for an LCD) colour reproduction (IPS).
At the risk of coming over like an anti-LCD advocate, I think that this article correctly identifies why LCD is a dead-end technology; no matter the improvements, LCDs will never be able to match or exceed CRTs in all areas.
I thought that the 21" OLED display Samsung showed a few days ago looked quite attractive. They didn't list the price, though, or when it'll be available for sale
I never intended it to be an exhaustive summaryDigital Viper-X- said:
Pretty much correct, yes.
Correct.
Except for this part:
), a decent CRT will still be more general-purpose than even the most expensive S-IPS display, not to mention more affordable.Elledan said:I never intended it to be an exhaustive summary
Pretty much correct, yes.
Correct.
Except for this part:
And of course, IPS is more expensive than TN.
So, in summary (
...which is fine as long as you don't mind paying extra for a 19" S-IPS displayDigital Viper-X- said:
Elledan said:...which is fine as long as you don't mind paying extra for a 19" S-IPS display
The reason why TN is killing off IPS (and MVA/PVA) in the 17" LCD market is because TN displays can be produced so cheaply (relatively speaking). You'd have to be quite insane to buy a TN display (for most applications), but the average consumer doesn't care what kind of LCD panel it uses, as long as it's an LCD, and it's cheap.
This is one of the reasons why I want to see SED, FED and OLED destroy the LCD market: I would like to see people go out, buy a display and not have to deal with poor IQ, narrow viewing angles, low contrast ratios, dead pixels, ad nauseam. Back in the 80s and early 90s you could buy a display and expect it to work fine for decades. Now CRTs are being phased out by a number of manufacturers, others are reducing the number of CRT models they're producing, instead focusing on LCD displays, which are effectively worse than CRTs in all but a very limited number of cases.
I want to see progress, not some pathetically struggling technology become popular.
From a technological perspective, I mean.Digital Viper-X- said:
If you like it, good for you. I wouldn't be able to stand using an LCD display for extended periods of time, due to many inherent properties of LCDs, such as the polarized light and motion blur.
Elledan said:
An LCD projector basically consists out of an LCD panel placed in front of a very bright light.ImLazZzy said:I know this is not the right place to post this question, but it just came to my mind and I really want to post it before I lost it: Is response time a spec (or does it matter) for LCD projectors? I don't see any manufacturer has ever listed this on their product specs sheets. Do they use the same tech as the LCD panels?
true ! Then why nobody has listed the response time for their LCD projectors? You think a DLP projector will do better as far as eliminating the motion blur is concerned?Elledan said:An LCD projector basically consists out of an LCD panel placed in front of a very bright light.
Think of it as an LCD display with a backlight on steroids
brom42 said:
You can forget about OLED displays (TVs, computer displays) appearing before 2008. The technology simply isn't mature enough yet.TSS Modder said:
well of course its not mature yet. but it at least looks like a promising technology (no pun intended). though id say OLED is still making leaps and bounds.Elledan said:
If OLED wasn't a promising technology it wouldn't be used in cellphones, MP3-players and all kinds of electronic devices.TSS Modder said:
http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/sed_display/
Q4, I believe.TSS Modder said:
Production costs, when produced in equal numbers as plasma displays, will be far lower for SED. This is thanks to the relatively simple design and the fact that existing CRT manufacturing lines can be changed to SED with relative ease.
jimbouna said:
TSS Modder said: