Sony to Stop Producing Smaller CRTs

NerveGas writes "Sony is apparantly going to stop producing 17- and 19-inch CRTs, in favor of LCDs. It seems a bit soon to drop CRTs completely, seeing as how LCDs still have less than 30% of the market share. Maybe since their patent on Trinitron screens expired, they're not able to command ridiculous margins any more." Smaller CRTs? I've got a couple 19" Sony monitors here, and I've always considered them to be a good size.

Comments

Re:Dropping CRTs may make sense (kinda)

[AmigaAvenger]

a reputation as a maker of top-quality stereo equipmen

where did you hear this one?!! Sony makes bottom of the barrel audio equipment, both at home garbage and mobile trash. It is sold to the lowest common denominator who is more interested in the 300 watt rating than anything else.

I'm not sure about _all_ CRTs

[Gyan]

For prepress and color-sensitive work, I would still want CRTs. Maybe 2-3 years down the line would sound OK, not now.

Reservation Price

[vandel405]

Its called "Reservation Price" and if you don't do it in business, you're doing the 'wrong' (profitwise) thing.

A persons reservation price, is the max $ they are willing to spend on an item. Lets say there are 5 (A, B, C, D, E) people in our world interesting in buying a shinny new FOO.

Bar INC. the maker of FOO does market research before releasing FOO and finds that some people (A and B) would pay $10 for foo, C thinks it is only worth $8 and D, E wouldn't buy it unless it were $5 or less.

So to make maximum profit, Bar INC. first prices FOO at $10 for a year, A and B pick up one each. Then they drop it to $8, C picks one, then after 18 more months, they drop it to $5 and D and E get there FOO's. Total revenue is 38$ for Bar INC. If they had just marketed at some average of like ~$8 they would have only made $24 because D and E would never purchase.

It is safe to assume that nearly all hardware companies practice this.

Re:the las vegas effect

[Edgewize]

You haven't looked at LCD recently, I guess. I paid under $280 for a KDS 15" LCD to replace a 17" (16.1 viewable) Trinitron and it has no smearing whatsoever. The only thing I have ever noticed is when quickly scrolling white text over a black background, the text is visibly dimmer (but still readable).

There are plenty of LCD monitors with a total response time under 35 ms now, which is enough for 30 crisp, fully-contrasted frames per second. Quake 3 and other fast high-contrast games might lose some crispness, but the images are still clear and bright enough for the average joe. (Maybe even better-looking, since there's just the slightest hint of motion blur :)

Of course some very cheap LCDs have serious issues with ghosting, but you shouldn't have any problems as long as you try before you buy.

One thing to be careful with piuxel response times

[StArSkY]

Some pixel response times are measured in half-cycles and others are measured in full cycles.

My 25ms lcd's are FULL cycle. 25ms to clear and replace a pixel with a new colour.

Some manufacturers are advertising pixel response times based upon just the time from already cleared to fill, and as such report their times twice as good as they actually are. So be careful and definitely TRY BEFORE YOU BUY with LCD's. Also remember ot check for dead pixels.

Small monitors are too cheap

[Turbyne]

Sony said its decision was reached for reasons of cost as well as market demand. "We see a trend toward larger size screens in CRTs," said Eddie Taylor, a business planning manager for Sony's display division, in a brief interview.

These days a 15" LCD costs as much as a 15" CRT 5 years ago. The general public probably likes LCDs more, and the people who are willing to shell out serious cash on CRT want the biggies. Just look at the price structure. The most and least expensive 19" monitor costs $350 and $430, respectively. For 21" CRTs, the prices are $600 and $1700 (not counting the color reference one). Now let's just say manufacturing costs for the 21" = 120% (random number, but makes some sense) of the 19". Then Sony would be making a much larger profit margin on CRTs, and bailing out before price wars make the 19" unprofitable.

Re:Back in the old days...

[Turbyne]

After the settlement of the strike and the successful launch of their ADR stock, Sony had returned to normal. An eventful 1961 drew to a close on December 16, when Sony concluded a contract with Paramount Pictures to provide technical assistance in the production of a chromatron tube and color television receiver utilizing it.

The days of radio are over. The future lies in television. Ibuka's simple comment resulted in the birth of Sony's model TV8-301, the world's first portable television. It was, however, a black and white receiver.

We are surrounded by vivid colors in our daily life. Television, then, must be true to life. A TV set that cannot reproduce color is far from having been perfected. Producing color TVs was the next logical step for anyone involved in television. Sony was no exception. Many people had taken part in the technical research of color TVs from the earliest days of television. Early color receivers used cathode-ray tubes developed by RCA, which employed the three-electron gun shadow mask system. These cathode-ray tubes had three major drawbacks however: they were expensive, difficult to tune and broke down often. In comparison with black and white sets, the images were much darker. Moreover, when viewed in a normally lit room, the beautiful colors did not come through. Colors often ran into one another --- in general it was difficult to attain an accurate picture.

The consensus was that the dark picture and failure to produce true color did not merit the high price. This feeling accounted for the slow sales of color sets. In the U.S., the ratio of B/W TV owners to color TV owners was 50 to 1 (50 million to 1 million). In Japan, the situation was worse, with only 300 color receivers sold in contrast to nine million B/W sets.

Ibuka and the others decided that if they were going to tackle color TV, they would not rely on the shadow mask process with all its drawbacks. The Sony staff was confident that they could come up with a television without precedent. Sony is an innovator. We do things that no one has done. With this, Sony began the urgent search for a replacement to the shadow mask.

The SV-201 all-transistor VTR.

Sony was not alone. Dissatisfaction with the shadow mask screen was widespread. One possible substitute was the banana tube. Television signals were sent through this long thin tube, followed by RGB signals flashed at timed intervals, shuttered through a striped filter rotated through the beam. The rotating sound made a clattering noise, which in Japanese is onomatopoetically referred to as karakara. The color television using it was given the dubious, but amusing, name of karakara television, because of its phonetic closeness to the word color. The apple tube, which had been developed by Philco, was another possibility. Then there was the chromatron tube. This was the invention of famous American atomic physicist and Nobel laureate, Dr. E. O. Lawrence.

In March 1961, Kihara and his staff took part in the IRE Show which was held at the New York Hilton Hotel and the New York Coliseum. An exhibit of the latest technology and technological applications, this was more like a scientific exposition than the present day trade show. Kihara and his staff had brought along the SV-201, the world's smallest video recorder and Hi-D (high-density) metal powder-coated tape which had been developed for the recorder.

Here at the show, the Sony staff came across the brightest color display they had ever seen. It had originally been conceived as an IFF (Identification of Friend or Foe) display for military use. At one glance, however, Kihara knew that it was what they had been looking for.

http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-10/h1.html

Re:pros and cons of LCDs

[LoudMusic]

Finally, someone on MY side. The last time I made a comment about all the benefits of CRT and the negatives about LCD I got trashed by about twenty Apple dorks.

I agree, the 22" and even more so with the 23" Apple Displays are beautiful displays. But not for what Apple is trying to sell them for, and definitely not for the price. I am the sys admin for an advertising agency in Little Rock, Arkansas - I buy all 21" Sonys for my artists and they absolutely love them. I'd get them the 24" if my budget were twice as big ...

And actually I've been under the impression that Sony made Apple's displays all along - back to the days of the beige 21" Apple Studio Display. Without doing actual research I stumbled onto this Sony display which happens to be a 23" LCD with the exact same specs as Apple's HD Cinema Display I pretty much knew they were the same thing. Guess what, Sony's is $500 cheaper. Only difference is the Apple Digital Connector.

When the Trinitron is replaced I'll still be buying from Sony. They just make good shit.

Re:Lines

[RoundTop-VJAS]

Those lines are what sony had patented until recently (and licenced out too).

It is called Apature Grill. It is a series of vertical fins just inside which make the pixels (spacing and all that). But because they have no horizontal support, they need it. so there are small supports at 1/3 and 2/3 down the screen (use a white background and you can see it).

The other technology, which is more expensive to manufacture, is Invar Shadow Mask. This is like a fine mesh that has holes for each pixel. The benefit is that it tends to be a sharper image, doesn't have the lines, and looks pretty much great. Cons are it costs more, and most companies went the AG as soon as they could.

I hate the AG monitors, so when I bought my 19" CRT (flat screen), I got a Viewsonic G90f. 19" shadow mask. It cost me $550CDN about 1.5 years ago. I have not regretted going to it at all.

I can go to very high res with no problems, it never ghosts, no bloody lines, and viewsonic went all-out with it. One of the possible drawbacks to shadow mask is that it can be slightly dimmer (due to less light making it through [think a fine mesh to cover your windows vs thin slat blinds), but viewsonic boosted the brightness a LOT. I keep it at ~50% and it is very bright.

LCD problems

[ShadowDrake]

I've used LCDs (in the context of laptops) and CRTs. I'd rather have a CRT where the option exists.

-There's no chance of a dead pixel wiggling across the virtual screen when I scroll my 1600x1200 virtual desktop on a 1152x864 actual screen.

-No viewing angle problems. Period.

-All the colours are attractive. Have they finally made LCDs that do adequate red and brown?

-No scaling problems. I need 640x480. I want 1152x864. If my screen is tied to 1280x1024, I'd have either a viewing window the size of a postage stamp or terrible scale-up.

Fortunately, I already have a 19" tube. Only way I'm getting a bigger one is if someone chains one of those dirt-cheap 10-year-old 20" Sun or HP fixed-frequency monitors to the back of a Voodoo III.

Re:Does this mean... cheap Trinitrons?

[Mac Degger]

That is the only problem with trinitrons...but you'll only notice that on a white background, like when webbrowsing, and only when you first use the monitor...after about 5 days, it's a nonissue. And lets be serious: who needs a trinitron for webbrowsing?

Another plus for trinitron, appart from the !sharp! picture, is it's colour. Very important if you work in print, dtp, video, 3d or anywhere else where colour is important.

Re:Dropping CRTs may make sense (kinda)

[evilviper]

Sony makes bottom of the barrel audio equipment

I can't imagine where anyone would get this idea. Sony consistently beats the crap out of every other manufacturer.

While everyone else had 3 second shock-protection, and had to swap batteries every 2-4 hours, I had a Sony CD Discman that had 40 second memory, and lasted about 40 hours on two AA batteries, had S/PDIF output, and a metal shell (not plastic).

Their headphones have great frequence ranges, where most others cut of the high or low-end. And Sony headphones are always louder than others (less resistance) because they don't use cheap speakers that can't handle the power.

Their amplifiers are powerful, and just about all their equipment produces less noise than anything but professional equipment (which costs several times more).

Their equipment is quite durable as well, and lasts for years even under my heavy use.

I can't imagine how anyone else could have such different experiences than mine.

Re:the las vegas effect

[mosch]

well, you may disagree, but that would make you wrong.

Pixel color and intensity on an LCD doesn't change until it is told to. If every single frame tells the pixel to be teal, then it will never stop being teal, at all. It will not go teal/black/teal/black, like a CRT.

Re:the las vegas effect

[aenea]

You don't burn black bars, in fact, it's sort of the opposite effect. If you watch a lot of 4:3 material, the black bars won't burn as much as the center of the screen, so when you watch a 16:9 show, the outside edges will appear brighter than the center. Hence the grey bars to burn the outside edges evenly with the center.

Samsung 50" HDTV w/ no risk of burn-in......

[Ride-My-Rocket]

I'll be the first to admit my utter ignorance when it comes to the wonderful world of home electronics, but I know how to spew things verbatim. :) The Samsung 50" DLP Widescreen HDTV-capable projection TV has zero problems with burn-in or convergence, since it doesn't have any CRT guns in it. My buddy just bought it for his apartment, and not only is the picture super-crisp and viewable at fairly wide angles without fading out, like some other big-ass TVs.

Oh, and did I mention it's only 17.5" deep and weighs all of 88lbs? That's just a smidgen heavier than my 21" NEC AccuSync 120 at work, and almost 3" shallower!

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

[Doug Merritt]

Your eye can't pick up more than 60 fps anyway. If you think it can, you're high on crack

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You're superficially quoting something that admittedly is often quoted, but this is a very complex subject, and your summary of it is so simplistic as to be wrong.

For one thing, the "critical flicker fusion rate" is not simply a universal "60 frames per second". It depends on:

• ambient lighting conditions (brightness and contrast of the room)
• ambient lighting continuity (the flicker of flourescent lights can, and does, interfere with the flicker of the screen)
• the viewer (some people are much more sensitive to flicker than others; I'm in between extremes, so 60fps is usually not quite enough, but 70-72fps is always enough for me personally...other people may need 80fps)

That's part of why movie theaters get away with a mere 48fps (24 unique frames, but each is double shuttered). They turn the ambient lights down to almost zero, and that helps a lot.

You're also mildly confused about tv, which in the US does use 30 unique frames per second, but by using interlace, increases that up to more reasonable 60fps...however most people will definitely see flicker on US tv at some times in some conditions. Sophisticated broadcasters usually try to minimize the issues on their end, but that's not always enough.

Europe of course has 25 unique frames, interlaced up to 50 total frames per second (to match the frequency of their wall current, just as 60 Hertz matches US wall current frequency), and TV's in Europe are often perceived to flicker, as opposed to rarely.

It also depends on which aspect of perception under discussion; cartoons sometimes use as few as 4 unique frames per second (each displayed repeatedly to end up with a total of 48 or 60 or whatever fps), because that's adequate for a perception of motion. But it's jerky motion.

And now we have come to the heart of the issue of why it can be desirable to have even higher rates than 60 to 80fps. We are strobing objects in continuous motion, and the faster they move, the more the strobed snapshot of them is subject to motion blur (potentially...never mind whether this happens e.g. Quake in particular).

In real life, objects being viewed are in a continuous domain, and our perceptual system does something similar to discrete sampling. That will never mathematically be identical to discrete sampling of a discrete sequence at another rate; there's always issues of aliasing. This is a huge issue for digital signal processing in every domain, whether audio, visual, or other.

At any rate, in theory, certain very rapidly moving objects should be perceived more crisply at (say) 150 fps than at 80fps, even though that's way over that critical flicker fusion rate --- there are more issues involved than just that.