Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CES Scorecard 2007 - What Came True; What Didn't

Posted by Zonk on from the just-a-few-weeks-away dept.

narramissic writes "In the race for Consumer Electronics Show (CES) headlines, companies parade new, hot, and not-quite-ready-for-primetime products while keynote speakers rev things up with predictions for the year ahead. An ITworld article runs down the list of who stuck their necks out too far in 2007, starting with Sharp's monster 108-inch LCD. 'The set represented the biggest flat-panel TV developed -- a title it still holds today -- and came without a price but with the promise of availability during 2007. But wealthy consumers are still waiting. Sharp said recently that it is still working on plans for a commercial launch for the TV set.'"

80 comments

  1. Getting the 108-inch beast home... by TheWoozle · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    You might want one of these.

    --
    Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
    1. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How cute! Lookit them, they're so small! Are they them new whiz-bang hybrids we've been hearing about?

      U-S-A! U-S-A!

    2. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

      A truck is something you can park your F-350 on.

      http://www.komatsuamerica.com/?p=equipment&f1=view&prdt_id=864

    3. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by philpalm · · Score: 1

      Some of those gigantic beasts can really cost ya. I installed a giant for USC and they had us return it before a week was over because it stopped working. This was only an $8,000 beast but yes a lot of bugs need to be worked out of TV LCD HD TV that are over 60 inch diagonal. The DLP televisions are still very good, but the larger the set, the more options have to be offered, like internet viewing and other hookups. There are some rumors that Plasma production is slowing down, but early adopters risk being abandoned later...

    4. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      I am not so sure about DLP sets. There have recently been some revelations about longevity of nanomachines and DLP chips probably fall under that same issue since they are silicon that really gets a workout as it aims the little mirrors. Also, one dead pixel and you can have a super bright pixel on your screen. I'd rather have a pixel go dark than super bright.

      Plasma sets are also having issues, suffer from burn-in, and are expensive.

      I think LCD (either reflective or transmissive) is the best bet for a long-lived and trouble free TV.

    5. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by Osty · · Score: 1

      I am not so sure about DLP sets. There have recently been some revelations about longevity of nanomachines and DLP chips probably fall under that same issue since they are silicon that really gets a workout as it aims the little mirrors. Also, one dead pixel and you can have a super bright pixel on your screen. I'd rather have a pixel go dark than super bright.

      As long as the DMD can last 5-6 years (which shouldn't be a problem), that's fine with me. My TV upgrade cycle is about that long, so what do I care if DMDs will fail after 10 years of use? Also, dead pixels on a DMD are just like dead pixels on an LCD. How they die determines what type of dead pixel you get. If the pixel dies "closed", you get a dark pixel. If it dies "open", you get a bright pixel. The only thing you won't get is colored pixel death. Also, my 2 year old 50" DLP has 0 dead pixels, while my 2.5 year old 17" laptop LCD has a number of dead pixels cropping up around the edges (a few more and it'll be time to buy a new laptop).

      Plasma sets are also having issues, suffer from burn-in, and are expensive.

      That's the risk you take when you use phosphor-based technology (plasma TVs still use phosphors to emit colored light, just like a CRT; the difference is in the excitation model). As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with phosphor-based technology. That includes SED, if it ever materializes.

      I think LCD (either reflective or transmissive) is the best bet for a long-lived and trouble free TV.

      It depends on your criteria. LCDs have the worst picture quality and contrast of all of the technologies. Black level is horrible. LCDs also are very prone to dead pixels, especially at larger sizes. Cold cathode backlights have a relatively low half-life (on the order of ~5 years to half-brightness), though that is being solved with LED backlights. For my TV dollar, DLP is the way to go. The DMD is reliable enough for medium-term use (none of these TVs are going to last 20-30 years like your parents' old CRT), the price is great, and being front- or rear-projection allows for more flexible sizes. The downsides (rainbow effect, viewing angle, extra cabinet depth) at least for me are completely outweighed by the upsides. When I upgrade again in ~3 years, I fully expect I'll get another DLP.

    6. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Plasma sets are also having issues, suffer from burn-in, and are expensive.

      For a given size, plasmas are cheaper than LCDs. Granted I got a good price, but my 58" plasma (the family holiday present) was $1900. Plasma is a power hog though; I think it is rated at over 600 watts.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    7. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As long as the DMD can last 5-6 years (which shouldn't be a problem), that's fine with me. My TV upgrade cycle is about that long, so what do I care if DMDs will fail after 10 years of use?

      Yeah, well you're weird! My TV is almost as old as I am, and I'll bet a large section of the market is probably more similar to me than you. (Of course, I'm admittedly not planning on getting a 108-inch LCD anytime soon either, so the point is somewhat moot.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      A TV as old as you? I'm not sure whether you or me are in the majority but I can't imagine having a TV that old. The oldest TV in our house (besides one we just got from one of my grandparents whose age is unknown and which sits unplugged waiting for a purpose) is about half as old as me, and that one's not used to watch TV but just as a backup in case we need 2 large TVs for playing console games. Our primary TV is only 4 years old and starting to look somewhat replaceable.

      I'm no TVplile either, no HD, Blu-ray, just DVDs and cable, but I couldn't stand to have a TV as old as myself...I mean, it would probably be smaller than our current one (42 inch) and very low res, even I couldn't put up with that...

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    9. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      A TV as old as you? I'm not sure whether you or me are in the majority but I can't imagine having a TV that old.

      Well you see, I'm not that old -- I'm 23. ; ) The TV is from the late 80s/early 90s; it's a hand-me-down from my parents. Aside from having only coax input (no RCA or S-video, but it is "cable-ready"), it's not much different than any other cheap analog CRT you'd find these days at Wal-Mart and the like. Oh, and it's a whopping 19".

      My parents have a 15" TV in their bedroom that's at least a decade old, and the other (a 27", for the living room) is almost brand new -- yet still analog and CRT! -- that they only got because the previous (15+ year old) TV had suddenly died. They also recently got rid of their oldest TV (another 19"), because it had finally faded enough that it was too dark to watch comfortably. It was so old the tuner couldn't go above 70.

      Sadly, my parents couldn't get a TV larger than 27" even if they wanted to bother spending the money on it (which they don't), because it wouldn't fit in their built-in entertainment unit that was made 15 years ago when they had their house built. (I argued vehemently against the thing, but they didn't listen. I think they've finally realized I was right, though...)

      Anyway, the point is that quite a lot of both college students (like me) and baby-boomers (like my parents) still aren't in the market for any sort of TV other than small, SD CRTs, and won't be for quite some time.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by ffejie · · Score: 1

      According to the CEA, 50% of households have a digital TV. I would venture a guess that 80-90% of those were bought in the last 6 years. That would put most of the country on track with replacing their TV in the last 6 years. I don't think most people have TV manufactured in the 80s (or even the 90s) anymore.

      --
      Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
    11. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by caldodge · · Score: 1

      > I am not so sure about DLP sets.

      Consumer Reports did a survey of their members about flat screen TVs. 3% of the Plasma and LCD TVs needed some sort of repairs, while for DLP the number was 10%.

    12. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      That would put most of the country on track with replacing their TV in the last 6 years.
      You are making the (IMO crazy) assumption that most households only have one TV.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    13. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by ffejie · · Score: 1

      Very true. To clarify, my point wasn't that most TVs are new, but rather that most households have new TVs. I think most people do have a TV in their basement that is pushing 10 years. However, it's not the primary device.

      --
      Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
    14. Re:Getting the 108-inch beast home... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I think it is fair to say that most households have at least one newish TV. I think it is also fair to say that most households would be very upset if the main TV was the only one that stayed working.

      But TVs aren't the real problem since the TV problem is easilly solved with set top boxes and sometimes ariel upgrades. VCRs and PVRs are a much bigger problem at least in my experiance they don't get on too well with set top boxes if you want to make timed recordings reliablly and they have only moved to integrated digital tuners VERY recently.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  2. i guess it's more figurative. by User+956 · · Score: 1, Funny

    the list of who stuck their necks out too far in 2007

    The guy killed by the tiger at the SF zoo on December 27 didn't make the list?

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  3. Am I the only one? by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only one who read this and wondered where the rest of the article is? I found this kind of empty. They only wrote about four products and five technologies out of the 2000 vendors.

    --

    Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    1. Re:Am I the only one? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Am I the only one who read this and wondered where the rest of the article is? I found this kind of empty. They only wrote about four products and five technologies out of the 2000 vendors. No, the article was complete. You can buy the other 1991 products at Walmart.
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:Am I the only one? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And why do they present 1991 products on a 2007 show anyway?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  4. Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    There are so many predictions that come true and those that do not, I've done a blog post which specifies my favorites.

    1. Re:Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent post is a MyMiniCity link. Please disregard.

    2. Re:Hah by calebt3 · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Why does everybody feel the need to report myminicity links? Aren't they obvious enough? They are all vague one-liners that refer to a link to that will supposedly illustrate the poster's point (and are often AC). Same goes for goatse.ca links. Trolls can't make them much longer without making some sort of statement relevant to the story.

    3. Re:Hah by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I just add each one I see to my /etc/hosts file to redirect them to 127.0.0.1. If I ever accidentally click one, it fails.

    4. Re:Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think the answer is to point clickbots at them and get their account yanked for fraud. Or if myspamcity actually pays up, then it can bankrupt 'em. Win-win.

  5. HD format war by Sciros · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The 108" display being forgotten is all great and stuff (who cares, really) but the article focused much more on the unresolved HD format war (blu-ray vs hd-dvd) which I find funny considering JUST HOW MANY blu-ray ads I've seen on Slashdot recently. Anyway, prices have indeed dropped a good bit over time and with the slow adoption rates is it really looking like any of these formats is going to take over, let alone win over the standard DVD format, ever? I'm not sure anymore. It seems like if another couple of years go by and nothing much changes, we'll see a solid-state memory format becoming more viable as next-gen storage for media.

    Actually that would be nice, but I don't see the movie industry being too keen on that happening, and Sony will never give up on pushing a proprietary media format that they can monopolize.

    --
    I like basketball!!1!
    1. Re:HD format war by Nerd4News · · Score: 1

      108" is for wimps. The new vaporware in big TVs is this.
      http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/26/panasonic.150.inch.tv.soon/

    2. Re:HD format war by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Funny

      Frank has a 2000" TV.

    3. Re:HD format war by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Frank has a 2000" TV.


      And I'm mighty proud to say,
      Now I can watch "The Simpsons" from thirty blocks away.

      Yep, that was the first thing I thought of, too.

      Chris Mattern
    4. Re:HD format war by random0xff · · Score: 1

      Blu-ray will win.

  6. At that size... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...why not go with a projector? Honestly, the main reason to have a TV rather than a projector for small sizes is the awkwardness of placing the projector. For the big screen, place it out of the way near the ceiling and you'll have a wall full. All in all, I don't see the niche the 108" would fit even if I had lots of disposable cash.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:At that size... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      why not go with a projector?

      Hello?? Like that would work, a projector placed on the ceiling of a hummer..

      *sigh*

      some people truly have no idea of the problems some of us face

    2. Re:At that size... by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      you can't watch a projector with any kind of light in the room, so it's useless unless it has it's own special room.

      I have a 70", 178cm JVC hdtv and it's far better then any projector i've seen.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:At that size... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because a projector takes more room?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:At that size... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are special screens you can buy that make projectors viewable in rooms that have light in them. They're quite expensive and it's still not quite as good as watching an LCD/Plasma, but it's still not bad.

      I've got a friend who installs home theaters who had a 96" screen up at his house for a few weeks before it had to go into a customer's home. The screen alone cost $4k, but it wasn't all that bad with the lights on and was stunning with the lights off. He's got a 60" plasma up now and the difference with the lights on isn't nearly as much as you'd expect. With the lights off, the plasma isn't nearly as good.

      I don't doubt that your 70" JVC is a nice TV, but I think your comment only really applies to projector setups where you aren't spending upwards of $8k on the projector/screen combo. When you get into that price range, projectors start to look really good compared to flat panel displays. They've got a number of other annoyances (noise, bulb replacement, etc), but ambient light isn't that big a deal.

    5. Re:At that size... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Maybe for people who have to compensate for something?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:At that size... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You write like a seven year old, you can't tell it's from its or than from then, and you can afford a 70" TV? What is this world coming to? What can someone like you offer the world that you can afford that?

    7. Re:At that size... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You got it. THAT is the reason there really is no market for the 108" monster plasma.

      I can ship a high end projector and screen for peanuts. a 108" monster plasma or LCD will cost me nearly $500.00 in truck freight and another $500.00 in insurance. I get so many 58" or 64" set's delivered broken it's not funny, the larger they get the more they arrive broken (glass broken from shipping)

      Also the rich people are not interested in the 108. Most want the 50" a few will buy the 58" when we spec it in the package deal at only $100.00 more and very few want the 64 as it's too damned big. Even mounted at 6 feet high over the fireplace in a gigantic parlor room it's too big. a 50" looks better and fits most decor better.

      the 108 will not be common as it's too damned big to ship, too damned big to deliver, and will require a team of 4 or more to hang it on the wall. and dont even think of putting it on a tilt bracket!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:At that size... by bahwi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try a grey screen, or if you prefer screen paint(what I have). http://www.goosystems.com/

      Works great in my well lit house with the windows. I haven't seen many TVs that compare to my HDTV projector at 120" + :D

      But to each their own. Anything over 50" is great for splitscreen on video games. Keeps me very happy.

    9. Re:At that size... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I can imagine an operating room scenario where it could come in quite handy. The neurosurgeon doesn't just cut the brain in half and start working, he inserts an endoscope (fiberoptic bundle leading to a camera). If he had a 108" monitor on the wall attached to a high-def scope, he could see the whole thing real big from across the room without having to zoom in. His residents would also be able to see without having to hunch over a small monitor. Then he could have MRIs or other imagery displayed with PIP.

      It's not feasible to have a rear-projection screen that big because it would be too thick (taking up space in the room/wall) and would be too hard to see off-axis. A front projector wouldn't work because the OR is filled with lights and equipment on movable booms mounted on the ceiling. It would have to be mounted high up, outside the boom swing radius, and not over the sterile field.

      You could easily retrofit a room with a big monitor just by replacing the huge array of light boxes. There's no way to retrofit a projector.

      Besides, in brain surgery, cost is not much of an issue. A 108" monitor may be expensive, but not when compared to the MRI machine in the room, or the microscope, Brain Lab, etc.

      dom

    10. Re:At that size... by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly headed for a projector. I've seen a normal old DVD projected onto a wall with a nothing special projector driven by a Macbook Pro. The picture was about two meters across and it looked great. There is absolutely no point in getting HD and having the picture any smaller.

      Of course, to actually make use of a HD projector I also need to re-arrange a room, get better curtains, install a screen, buy one piece of new furniture, upgrade my amp to (at least) 5.1, buy a sub-woofer, re-cable some stuff and, oh yeah, buy a high-def player of one or both flavours. It make take some time.

    11. Re:At that size... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "seven-year-old" is correct, smart guy. Try again later.

    12. Re:At that size... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... with those people skills, I wonder just what YOU are able to constructively offer to the world.

    13. Re:At that size... by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      I have a 70", 178cm JVC hdtv and it's far better then any projector i've seen.

      You haven't seen a good projector then.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
  7. No mention of GPSTrack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    surprizing there was no mention of the new GPSTrack to instantly reveal the location of any cellphone. Anyone know if the CIA has banned this technology?[stanford.edu]

    1. Re:No mention of GPSTrack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      surprizing there was no mention of the new GPSTrack to instantly reveal the location of any cellphone. Anyone know if the CIA has banned this technology? [dwarfurl.com][stanford.edu] Hmmm... I see what you did there. Is that one of them new fangled double links?
    2. Re:No mention of GPSTrack? by mitzman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      parent is a myminicity.com url or whatever that gay game is.

  8. (plus one Informati7e) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    = 1400 Ne7BSD to fight what has Is the group that

  9. In recent news, Sony to avoid projector HDTV by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    And go with smaller LCD HDTV units.

    It's amazing how gullible the electronics press was, in believing that bigger is always better.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to fire up the generator for my personal computer that takes up my entire basement ... I built it based on Popular Mechanics designs by hand ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:In recent news, Sony to avoid projector HDTV by Lumpy · · Score: 1


      Actually if you have the room an older rear projection HDTV is better. I got a 50" rca scenium on clearance new in a box for $399.99 because the sheeple wont buy them anymore. Granted non projector based are quieter for the "i barely want the volume up" crowd but I like it cranking so I dont hear the fans or colorwheel.

      And with everyone being fed the 1080p marketing BS everyone is shying away from the 720p sets giving lots of bargians out there. We are buying 37" olevia sets for $200.00 each from a local distributor that thinks that everyone wants 1080p. So we get a stock of cheapies we can blow out at 100% profits (unheard of in HDTV retail) and sell them faster than we get them in stock. And we are not a retail store but a integrator/reseller... Our customers are filthy rich and still buy the crap brands for their kids or garage when offered at an incredible deal (we get another $500.00 for install and crestron/vantage programming so it's integrated to the automation. that's pure profit there :-)

      Ignore current "trends" and buy the older clearance stuff. you will be far happier.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:In recent news, Sony to avoid projector HDTV by heinousjay · · Score: 0, Troll

      I made it all the way to the word "sheeple."

      I assume you have a point, but I no longer care what it was.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  10. What's the point here? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't understand the appeal.

    I've seen a lot of LCD TVs on sale and display at various stores. The one thing they all have in common is they all look like crap. These aren't just the cheap TVs. I'm talking about multi-thousand-dollar models that just look horrible.

    Perhaps "crap" isn't an objective term. They look grainy, have flicker, pixelation, and cost a fortune.

    I saw an ad for one recently that was very proud of its "10-bit engine" capable of 1080 lines! Wow! Correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask) but that's basically the same picture you'll get on your 1024 x 768 monitor, but blown up to be 108 inches. Right now, on my ols 17" CRT, I'm running at 1152 x 864. If this picture was blown up to 108 inches, it would look like garbage. And yeah, an 1152 source is equivalent to HD already.

    Why do people buy these? Is it for the graininess, the cool factor, the marketing hype, or what?

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    1. Re:What's the point here? by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 4, Interesting

      #1 hdtvs in stores (and sometimes in people's houses) OFTEN are displaying SD material, also often the ones that are displaying HD are running some sort of store loop with horribly super saturated colors and sometimes crappy compression. If you want to see what an HDTV can do try to get one with a hooked blueray or hd-dvd player playing a hidef movie with a good transfer.

      #2 1080p = 1920x1080, 1080 is the vertical resolution, not the horizontal. Also 108" is for people who want to sit 10' or more away from their TV, I doubt they'd sit at 2' away like you would on a computer monitor...

      I suggest you document yourself a bit more on things before thinking that HD is all hype or marketing.

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    2. Re:What's the point here? by Deltaspectre · · Score: 1

      Actually the 1080 in 1080p/i refers to height, the resolution is actually 1920x1080

      --
      My UID is prime... is yours?
    3. Re:What's the point here? by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1
      "1080 lines! Wow! Correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask) but that's basically the same picture you'll get on your 1024 x 768 monitor, but blown up to be 108 inches"

      Um, no, that's the same picture you'll get on your 1728 x 1080 monitor, but blown up to be 108 inches.

      --
      Kevin Smith on Prince
    4. Re:What's the point here? by immovable_object · · Score: -1

      You've confused 1080 with the first number. In reality, 1080 refers to the 2nd entry, 768, in your case. A 1080i or 1080p TV uses a resolution of 1920x1080.

      Try that resolution on your 17" CRT.

    5. Re:What's the point here? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Yeah, whoops. I did confuse those numbers. All I can say is, "It's Friday, and it's been a long year." You're right, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry.

      Still, the idea of quadrupling the resolution (540i vs 1080p) then increasing the size of the TV by 10x means that the picture will be more grainy - especially when they say you have to sit further away to get the "full viewing experience".

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    6. Re:What's the point here? by seyyah · · Score: 1

      "I suggest you document yourself a bit more ..."
      What, like that dude who got his DNA mapped?
    7. Re:What's the point here? by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      I think the choice is clear, the best viewing experience is had on a 13" CRT.

      Is that the point that you are trying to make? It sure seems like it. I'll take my HDTV TYVM!

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    8. Re:What's the point here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's a good CRT, it can do 2048x1536.

    9. Re:What's the point here? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That still means at 108", the TV would be (ponderpondercalculate, where's Pythagoras when you need him...) 70" high. So a pixel would be about 0.05 inches tall (or about 2mm for the metric people amongst us).

      Now, I could of course get back 10' so I won't see it anymore, but why bother buying a 108" TV then instead of simply buying a normal one and get closer?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:What's the point here? by corychristison · · Score: 1

      My personal 'sweet spot' for my eyes and my apartment is 37"-42".

      I agree with you on the idea of having a 100"+ TV is pretty dumbfounded... I think 50"-56" should be the max available. (other than the theater/IMAX)

    11. Re:What's the point here? by myz24 · · Score: 1

      Well that's sorta the point...that is, having a theater at home. I have a 90" front projection setup and I wouldn't trade it for a 50-56" TV. I'm only running 480p and it's certainly worth it. Running 1080p at that size is just far better. Why is everyone so negative on /.?

    12. Re:What's the point here? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I saw an ad for one recently that was very proud of its "10-bit engine" capable of 1080 lines! Wow! Correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask) but that's basically the same picture you'll get on your 1024 x 768 monitor,

      You're wrong. You seem to be confusing lines and columns.

      1080 lines would be (Something) x 1080. In the case of HDTV, 1920 x 1080, which is better than the majority of monitors.

      Besides, monitors and TVs aren't a particularly good comparison. You aren't going to be reading tiny, fine text on a screen that can only be seen less than 2 feet away, so the resolution isn't as important. Normal (non-HD) TVs are 704x480@60Hz, which isn't much higher than the standard (terribly low) 640x480 PC resolution we all know and hate, yet as long as you don't try to watch them from a few inches away, and don't try to read tiny text on them, they work just fine.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    13. Re:What's the point here? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Why is everyone so negative on /.?

      Because most of us probably couldn't afford a 108" display, and probably wouldn't have anywhere to put it!
    14. Re:What's the point here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Know what that sounds like? A poor person justifying to themself why they don't need a fancy big TV anyway.

      In fact, why bother with a regular sized TV at all when you can get one of those portable 2" TVs and a magnifying glass.

      I'm sure somewhere there's a filthy rich guy with a TV room larger than my apartment who simply can't imagine buying a TV less than 100".

    15. Re:What's the point here? by ConanG · · Score: 1

      Maybe because someone might want to put one up in a sports bar, or a corporate lobby, or an airport, or a millionaire's private theater for friends and family.

      No, these probably won't end up in the average person's home, but there IS a small niche market for displays this large.

    16. Re:What's the point here? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Informative

      108 inches diagonally is 94 inches wide. If you don't have a large home, it might be difficult to find 8 ft of solid uninterrupted wall (more if you want to complement it with speakers) and in some geek homes, three or four floor to ceiling bookcases may win out. And if you do have a large home, it may be more sensible to install a projector.

      .

    17. Re:What's the point here? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      If you ask me, the dying breed of flat CRT TVs look the best of anything. They have great color, great contrast, look good from all angles, don't have a proeblem with non-native resolutions, and can manage to display SD content without looking like total crap. The only problem is that a 36" set is huge and heavy, and they don't get bigger than that.

      I think the main reason people buy the LCDs is mostly because of the cool factor, but they also have the advantage of being a lot smaller and less heavy.

    18. Re:What's the point here? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      It's mostly the size/weight factor in my case. I can't stand the idea of having to move a CRT display any more, unless you have a bunch of young friends who are willing to do all the heavy lifting. Once you place the sucker, you're stuck with its location.

      LCD displays? Hell of a lot easier to move around and position.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  11. liars & touts & shills, oh my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    not to mention the murderous greed/fear/ego based 'leadership' problem we have. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'.

    we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) corepirate nazi felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

    http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

    micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster.

    the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

    corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
    (Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
    by ourselves on everyday 24/7

    as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way.

    the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available after the big flash.

    'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

    as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

    'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

    consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

    "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

    meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US;

    gov. bush denies health care for the little ones

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

    whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

    & pretending that it isn't happening here

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece

    all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

    (yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attemp

  12. Hollywood feels a large disturbance in the force. by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Funny

    He also now has the entire attention of the MPAA, ready to sue him into oblivion.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  13. As for the OLEDs... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    Sony made good on its commercialization plans and put the set on sale in Japan on Dec. 1, where it sold out almost immediately despite the ¥200,000 price tag. ??

    ¥200,000 is no amazing price for a small scale release with frontier technology... It's around $1,750...
    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  14. This is all very well... by macsuibhne · · Score: 1

    ...but where is my goddamn JetPack?

    Tony.

    --
    -- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
  15. What they didn't mention in the article... by mbessey · · Score: 1

    That's the price for an 11 inch diagonal OLED TV. I don't think I'd pay $1,750.00 for any 11-inch screen, no matter how nice it looks.

    http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202103858

    1. Re:What they didn't mention in the article... by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      Maybe if it was part of a bundle involving the creation of a sex tape with a squadron of Page 3 girls and the OLED screen was provided for viewing the raw footage during production.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  16. You can't buy anything from Atom Chip by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

    It was in late 2005 that there was a big article about Atom Chip and the products that they were suppose to be developing. They were at CES 2006 but according to what I read about them they allowed no one to touch their supposedly fantastic chips(a terabyte non-volatile memory chip). If one goes to the CES 2008 site and looks at the corporation that will be present one will again find Atom Chip. It one goes to their site one will see a pitch for a 100 gigabyte(2 50 gigabyte memory devices on one chip). Now if CES 2008 has any responsibility to the public they would not allow this corporation to display anything unless they are willing to let someone touch it who can determine if the product really exist.

  17. Of course it looks awful. It's the DRM. by Animats · · Score: 1

    #1 hdtvs in stores (and sometimes in people's houses) OFTEN are displaying SD material,

    Of course. The DRM system, HDCP, won't let you run multiple monitors from the same protected source. The player and monitor do a cryptographic key exchange to authenticate the monitor, then exchange session keys. So each player-to-monitor session has a unique key. You can't just split the output.

    There are multiple-output HDCP-compliant splitters., and they're not cheap. $750 for a 5-output unit is typical. These are certified DRM devices that do the cryptographic handshake on both sides, decrypting and re-encrypting within a single IC, as required by the HDCP consortium. You might find these in use at a high-end video store, but the local discount electronics retailer won't bother. Our local Fry's and Costco are still piping analog S-Video into most of their HTDV monitors.

  18. When did you go? by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    I've seen a lot of LCD TVs on sale and display at various stores. The one thing they all have in common is they all look like crap [...]

    I just went to Best Buy today and was impressed with how far LCD TVs have come. Some of them looked better than some quality DLP TVs. That was just my opinion, I'm not trying to talk anyone into getting a TV but I love my 50" LCD projection TV that is only 720p. I have to get pretty close before I notice pixelization.

    I saw an ad for one recently that was very proud of its "10-bit engine" capable of 1080 lines! Wow! Correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask) but that's basically the same picture you'll get on your 1024 x 768 monitor, but blown up to be 108 inches.

    OK, I'll correct you. 1080 lines is the vertical resolution, so it's actually 1920x1080 widescreen (16:9 ratio). That's better resolution that most people's computer monitors, about the same as my Dell 24" which is 1920x1200 (16:10 ratio). My screen sits about 24" from my face, so it would be about the same viewing my Dell on my desk and viewing this monster from nine feet away (4.5 times the size means 4.5 times the distance to take up the same portion of my vision). If you are going to watch TV closer than nine feet from it, I suggest you get a TV that is smaller than nine feet itself. I think this TV is meant more for home theater enthusiasts that are probably sitting further than that... 1080p is really a large leap in resolution, think about it this way: If you watch standard definition TV (480 lines and it's interlaced) on a 27" screen, you would have to move up to a 73" screen to get the same lines per inch at 1080p. If you don't notice pixelization on your 27" TV watching standard definition TV, you can safely upgrade to a 73" HDTV in the same position and not notice pixelization when watching 1080p content.

  19. Getting the 3D effect home... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think LCD (either reflective or transmissive) is the best bet for a long-lived and trouble free TV."

    You can't use shutter glasses with them so doing 3D is impossible.

  20. Refreshing by fat_mike · · Score: 1

    At last! Another insightful, informative article that told us nothing!

    Who pays these people? That's right, if it has any kind of tech buzzword it gets published, bought, invested in, fawned over and masturbated on.

    Man, reminds of about 10 years ago...

    DVORAK!!!!