Slack LCD TV Market Means Cheaper Phones And Monitors

Shakrai writes "CNN and Business2 are running a story about the apparent failure of LCD TVs to make a major market impact and what it means for you. Specifically for us geeks it means cheaper cellular phones and laptops due to an oversupply of LCD manufacturing. Does this mean I can finally afford that 21" LCD monitor I've always wanted?"

Comments

About time...

[jav1231]

$389 for a 15" LCD screen can hardly be justified when 19" CRT's are half that price. Glad to see this coming.

Re:About time...

[Lehk228]

probably because of randomly distributed bad pixels, if customers were willing to accept LCD monitors with two or three bad pixels LCD's would be a hell of a lot cheaper, but when a batch produces so much wasted area that is too small for a normal display costs of large, high-res units will be much more expensive than somewhat smaller, low-res units. the difference is that CRT technology, while fundamentally more complex overall, is less difficult to manufacture in moderately large sizes without picture flaws.

Does the LCD account for a big chunk of the price?

[godIsaDJ]

Somehow I find it difficult to believe that the tiny LCDs that come with most mobile phones account for a big chunk of their price...

PDAs though must be another story.

Re:Does the LCD account for a big chunk of the pri

[Liselle]

What I've always been told about LCD tech (someone correct me if I am wrong) is that there is a reason why high-res LCD is so expensive: dead pixels. There are only so many that can be tolerated before the panel is useless, and they have to start over. The screens for phones are tiny, the chance of getting an unacceptable number of dead pixels (and increasing cost) is small.

Why would you want one?

[GreatDrok]

I'm a bit of a videophile (audiophile too but lets not get into that).

Currently, the best available picture quality for direct view is still the venerable CRT. LCD and Plasma screens need video scalers to map the input signal to the display and these are rarely any good, certainly not in the consumer level equipment. Also, LCDs have very poor black level so the picture often looks rather grey. Plasma screens often have poor colour characteristics and also suffer from short lifespans. If you are considering one though, make sure you buy the Video Essentials DVD and learn how to use it so you can test any prospective purchase.

For projection systems the situation is somewhat different, a CRT projector while often capable of staggering picture quality is much harder to set up than an LCD or DLP projector and vastly more expensive. LCDs are generally less good than a DLP projector. DLP has better contrast ratio but may suffer from rainbow fringing if you get a single chip example. Correct calibration will fix this. LCDs have been much harder to calibrate well compared with a DLP in my experience and often suffer from uneven colour: several examples I tested looked slightly green on one side of the screen and blue on the other. Yuck.

There are other technologies coming along (OLED for instance) that look likely to change the landscape dramatically. I certainly wouldn't plunk down any money on an LCD TV. A plasma screen would also not be on my list as the picture just isn't big enough for movies IMHO. A good DLP based front projector supplemented by a standard CRT for normal TV will be far cheaper, and likely better quality than a plasma screen of half the size. The video scaler (Faroudja DDI) in my little DLP projector is much better quality than any of those I have seen in LCD or plasma screens and the projector cost a fraction of the price of the 40" examples.

I would certainly recommend buying a 16:9 set though (I got my first one back in '92 and people thought I was mad) but look at direct view CRT or rear/front projection DLP for the best bang for the buck I think.