Personally I find Google Docs only marginally useful even for the simplest of tasks, it would never replace a copy of Office for me.
Personally, I find any "office suite" useless for the simplest of tasks. Why do people think their to-do list or 1-page memo requires anything more complicated than plain text?
Tell me that plasmas weighing more is a disadvantage after the local thief walks off with your LCD.
The difference in power consumption between my 50" plasma and a 47" LCD is less than 40 watts, and I get a bigger picture, with a far better viewing angle, and a much wider range of color. LCDs simply don't have anywhere near the same color range, which is why Sharp is making a big deal about their "yellow pixel".
40 watts difference. That works out to $50 a year if I leave it on 24/7/365. Or less than a buck a month for the average user, for a far better picture. And buying a stand-alone dvd/bluray player (13 watts max) and a Wii (18 watts max), as opposed to either an xbox or ps3 (both over 100 watts) more than makes up for it.
The biggest problem with interpolation is that it makes people and things look like they were superimposed on a static background - the "soap opera effect". The brain notices the difference in quality between the figures moving, and the non-interpolated background. Sure, it's better for sports, because it helps people follow the puck/football/whatever, but that's about it.
People "fix" it by turning interpolation off. At that point, why spend the extra money for 120 or 240hz?
But compared to the previous generation of TVs, ALL flat-panel tech is thin.
Now, when you stuff it in a corner, you don't have to worry about lost room because of the extra depth. That means that a 50" plasma or lcd can sometimes go where a 27" tube tv sat, and not take up more floor space. That's pretty nifty.
It also means that everyone who bought those previous-gen rear-projection DLP crap or rear-projector tube tvs can gain a lot of floor space while getting a bigger picture.
e grotesque waste of energy that is your plasma has nothing to do with PS3 or bluray. Why confuse it? Your plasma will consume 2-3 more times energy.
Nope. My plasma is one of the newer efficient ones - 50" 295 watts. A 47" LCD consumes 250 watts, is smaller, and gives a way crappier picture. The cost difference is less than a dollar a month, for a far better picture. The reason Sharp is adding the yellow pixel is because LCDs can't produce as large a color range as plasmas. That's what you get for using a fluorescent light bulb as a backlight.
I checked out the energy ratings. My 50" plasma is 35 watts more than a comparable 47" lcd. When you get to the big screen sizes, lcds lose a lot of their energy advantages. If I were to leave it on 24/7, it would cost an extra $2 a month. In other words, for most users, the difference is just a rounding error on their electrical bill.
Sure, on smaller screens, you'll see a bigger difference, but smaller screens suck once you've gotten used to a big one.
Sure, your cheap 720p bottom-of-the-line old technology will.
Burn-in is no longer an issue except if you leave it on 24/7 with the same image all the time - and if you're doing that, you don't care about burn-in, since you're, you know, showing the same image all the time.
And the color range of lcds is crap compared to plasma (which is why all the fuss over the yellow pixel anyway - to increase the apparent color range). Energy consumption on big screen LCDs is within 20% of newer plasmas, so you might save $50 a year if you leave your tv on 24/7, at 10 cents a kw/h. Park your car and take a bicycle or walk to the corner store every week and you'll more than make up for it. Plus, in the winter months, the extra heat isn't wasted.
Lets see - my plasma uses 100 watts more than a comparable lcd. But I use a stand-alone player instead of a noisy energy-hogging ps3 or xbox, so it actually uses less than a ps3+lcd tv, and gives a better picture (the real reason for the yellow lcd pixel is because lcds don't have anywhere near the color range of plasma displays).
But let's just take an apples-to-apples comparison - OTA TV viewing.
From this list, my LG 50PS60 is rated at 295 watts. All but one of the smaller (47") lcd tvs is withing 30-45 watts of that (the only exception is an older model). So, let's go whole-hog, and say 50 watts extra. If the TV were left on 24/7, that would be an extra 438 kw/h a year. At 7 cents a kw/h, that's an extra $30.66, for 24/7 operation. Let's go nuts and put it at 10 cents per kw/h. That would still be less than $50 a year.
Of course, most days I don't even turn it on, but 175 hours a month (just under 6 hours a day) would cost only an extra buck a month. Aand when you consider that most days I don't even turn it on..., the difference in electrical costs is a rounding error.
Of course, I could take it out of energy-saving mode and it would cost $2 extra a month. Big deal. Bumping everything up
>I'm not 100% sure here, but aren't media formatted for PAL regions in 25 fps?
Depends. Yes (for video) no (for film)
To further complicate matters, the "120hz" lcd is advertised as "100hz" in PAL regions.
The real reason for the yellow pixel is that lcds have far less of a color range than plasma tvs to begin with. Just buy a plasma tv. It costs a bit more, but you won't hear people complaining about the "soap opera effect", poor viewing angles,or other problems.
You don't understand LCD technology since you seem obsessed with flicker. LCDs are not like CRTs. CRT phosphors fade and have to be refreshed in time or they disappear to nothing. That causes the refresh-dependent flickering. LCD pixels do not fade. The controller tells a pixel to turn on, it stays on until the controller tells it to turn off. The only refresh-related metric to be concerned with LCDs is how fast the pixel can turn on & off.
By the way, you also don't seem to understand that the pixel doesn't "turn on and off" on an LCD display - it just blocks the light from the backlight - which is a fluorescent bulb (the same technology that gives you eyestrain at the office). Or, in the case of an LED TV, an LED panel. And because the crystal is allowing light to pass through for a longer period of time, it's more susceptible to motion blur.
have you found anything that works to have two cursors simultaneously in windows?
You could try drinking until your eyes cross - Windows has been known to do that to people... it won't make Windows run any better, but it will dull the pain:-)
The means that the individual pixels are strobed 600 times a second., not to be confused with the LCD "dynamic contrast" bit which just means having multiple smaller fluorescent backlights instead of one large on, so that areas of the screen that are darker, they can dim that areas backlight and (1) save energy and (2) make the blacks "blacker". Only works if there's no bright spot in that area of the screen, so it's not the greatest.
Spend the few bucks more and buy a plasma. You won't get the "soap opera effect", and you'll have a rock-steady picture.
The "refresh rate" is set by the flourescent light in your back panel - not the lcd crystal shutters. Just like the "LED TV" is just an LCD tv with an LED for a backlight instead of one or more flourescent lights. That's why they all end up looking like crap in comparison to a plasma - where each pixel is made up of 3 separate emitters, no backlight, no diffusion panel, no light bleed when you stand near it and look down (or at too great an angle on the horizontal axis), and inherent reduced motion blur because the image is strobed, same as a crt
The interpolation he refers to is not the 24fps movie thing. Most modern up-market screens have per-frame interpolation - eg for a 30FPS input signal it will interpolate 3 extra frames to smooth the motion.
Then the math really doesn't work. 3 extra frames brings it up to 27fps. Unless you're saying throw in 3 frames for every frame, which gives... 96 frames. Still doesn't work. With 5:1 frames get 120 fps, which works, but the interpolation process will always produce artifacts, just like upscaling isn't as good as "the real thing." Of course, if you like the "soap opera effect", more power to you, but plenty of people disagree.
LCD screens are lighter, thinner, and more efficient though.
LCD screens are lighter - my 50" plasma might weigh a lot more, but it's on a swivel stand, so moving it takes one finger.
LCD screens are thinner - not much thinner, and most people spend their time looking at the front, not the side.
LCD screens are more efficient - depends. Hook it up to a playstation to watch a blu-ray, and you've more than lost any "efficiency" claim. The playstation burns 188 watts to decode blu-ray disks, while a stand-alone blu-ray player only uses 10 to 13 (and a lot less when on standby). Plasmas also don't have to produce more light than required, then selectively block it from each pixel (which is one reason why blacks are blacker on plasmas - no bleed from adjacent pixels, and no light leakage when you stand near them and look down). Turn the room lights off and put it in economy mode. Get a Wii (peak wattage is 18, as opposed the the 184 wattss for the playstation).
For the little TV viewing I do, we're talking pennies a month, and in the winter I recoup that from the heat generated (electricity from hydro power) - which reminds me, they're calling for snow tonight and tomorrow - so maybe I should invite people over to do some TV watching or play some pinball or snowboarding or air guitar and warm the place up - 6 people running around is almost 2,000 btus, throw in another 1,000 btus from waste heat from the plasma and sound system, and another couple hundred from the dogs and I might not have to turn the heating on:-)
There's still a source of flicker, since the lcd only blocks or unblocks the rear light source at the same (or twice) the frequency of the flourescent light beat frequency.
Try using one of the older 60hz lcds in an office and tell me your eyeballs aren't bleeding at the end of the day.
It doesn't matter if the lcds response time were instantaneous - the flicker effect is still there.
When I bought my 50", I figured it was big enough that I'd re-arrange the furniture to give the optimum viewing, taking into account windows and light sources; glare is pretty much non-existent (or for the lazy slashdotters and those who can't cut glare down any other way, just don't dust it:-)
I actually bought it for playing Wii games, of all things. I was going to opt for a cheaper 720p, but then I said to myself "What the heck", and the difference with 1080p is like night and day, despite everyone saying that there wouldn't be a difference (easy comparison - my neighbor has a 50" 720p plasma).
Yes, plasmas cost more, but you know something? Amortized over 10 years (3,640 days), a difference of, say, $500, is a buck a week. Throw out the cable or satellite box and buy a cheap antenna and you'll save enough to buy a blu-ray player, a stack of movies, a game console, and lots of games (or just stream hi-def content from your laptop). It just amazes me how many people think you need either cable or satellite tv to use an hd tv.
Except you're completely missing the point. It's not about sharpness or speed. It's about being an even multiple of 24hz so you can display film material (e.g. about everything you'd really want on a 1080p set) without any tricks that ruin the smoothness of motion.
Achieves better and more accurate color reproduction than LCDs (68 billion/236 versus 16.7 million/224)
Produces deep, true blacks allowing for superior contrast ratios (up to 1:2,000,000)
Far wider viewing angles than those of LCD (up to 178); images do not suffer from degradation at high angles unlike LCDs
Virtually no motion blur, thanks in large part to very high refresh rates and a faster response time, contributing to superior performance when displaying content with significant amounts of rapid motion
I can stand right next to my plasma and I don't have issues with light leaking around "dark" pixels, or color being off because of the viewing angle, that even supertwist lcds have.
I did my research before I bought... and not only don't I regret it - my friends who are in the market are sold on it even over the 240hz lcds.
technically, the source input is still running at 25 frames a second, not 600, so while it can change the whole image in 1/600 second... it doesn't. T
The input is either 30 or 60 frames per second. The image interpolation you're referring to is the 24fps "movie" thing - not the same thing at all. Movies aren't interlaced, but your copy of it (if it's an old tape or dvd - the dvd-v spec requires it) is. de-interlacing always sucks.
Also, a 600hz plasma under flourescent lighting still looks dead-steady, even with your peripheral vision (which is more sensitive to beat-frequency flicker).
A 120 Hz display provides a better result for 24 fps input (from film sources) than will a 60 Hz display. With 120 Hz, each frame is displayed for 1000/24 ms instead of varying between 1000/30 ms and 1000/20 ms on a 60 Hz display.
... and a 600hz plasma display also divides evenly by 24, giving 25 refreshes per frame, and far better blacks. LCDs still have a long way to go.
But the input signal is held constant for that while time, then the whole image refreshed in 1/600 of a second - much below the flicker speed of the human eye. That's what makes the picture look so much better compared even to 120hz lcds.
The other advantage (and one that even the review admits that the sharp fares worse) is blacker blacks, since the individual pixels are energized 600x/second, instead of 60, they can be made smaller, resulting in more black space on the panel, for deeper blacks.
Lake County growers said that pickers' pay was not low -- up to $150 a day -- and that they had been ready to pay even more to save their crops. "I would have raised my wages," said Steve Winant, a pear grower whose 14-acre orchard is still laden with overripe fruit. "But there weren't any people to pay."
Florida grows a majority of the nation's domestic winter tomato crop. Its workers earn about $12 an hour during the picking season for the hardest-working laborers, usually immigrants who receive no health insurance or overtime benefits. That equates to about 47 cents per 32-pound bucket. The new agreement's penny-per-pound increase only applies to the two participating farms.
Slashdot Mirror
You have shit on your dick? And you're calling someone else a "faggot"?
Personally, I find any "office suite" useless for the simplest of tasks. Why do people think their to-do list or 1-page memo requires anything more complicated than plain text?
Depends on the encoding. Adobe has a format that uses 96 bits internally.
The point is that there's a lot more color range with plasma, so you're more likely to get a color that's closer to the original.
Tell me that plasmas weighing more is a disadvantage after the local thief walks off with your LCD.
The difference in power consumption between my 50" plasma and a 47" LCD is less than 40 watts, and I get a bigger picture, with a far better viewing angle, and a much wider range of color. LCDs simply don't have anywhere near the same color range, which is why Sharp is making a big deal about their "yellow pixel".
40 watts difference. That works out to $50 a year if I leave it on 24/7/365. Or less than a buck a month for the average user, for a far better picture. And buying a stand-alone dvd/bluray player (13 watts max) and a Wii (18 watts max), as opposed to either an xbox or ps3 (both over 100 watts) more than makes up for it.
I kind of like the idea of having people eat my cooking once in a while, you insensitive clod! :-)
What good is having an awesome game collection without someone to play them with? It's what the Wii is about. Not just sitting alone fragging people.
People "fix" it by turning interpolation off. At that point, why spend the extra money for 120 or 240hz?
But compared to the previous generation of TVs, ALL flat-panel tech is thin.
Now, when you stuff it in a corner, you don't have to worry about lost room because of the extra depth. That means that a 50" plasma or lcd can sometimes go where a 27" tube tv sat, and not take up more floor space. That's pretty nifty.
It also means that everyone who bought those previous-gen rear-projection DLP crap or rear-projector tube tvs can gain a lot of floor space while getting a bigger picture.
Nope. My plasma is one of the newer efficient ones - 50" 295 watts. A 47" LCD consumes 250 watts, is smaller, and gives a way crappier picture. The cost difference is less than a dollar a month, for a far better picture. The reason Sharp is adding the yellow pixel is because LCDs can't produce as large a color range as plasmas. That's what you get for using a fluorescent light bulb as a backlight.
Sure, on smaller screens, you'll see a bigger difference, but smaller screens suck once you've gotten used to a big one.
Sure, your cheap 720p bottom-of-the-line old technology will.
Burn-in is no longer an issue except if you leave it on 24/7 with the same image all the time - and if you're doing that, you don't care about burn-in, since you're, you know, showing the same image all the time.
And the color range of lcds is crap compared to plasma (which is why all the fuss over the yellow pixel anyway - to increase the apparent color range). Energy consumption on big screen LCDs is within 20% of newer plasmas, so you might save $50 a year if you leave your tv on 24/7, at 10 cents a kw/h. Park your car and take a bicycle or walk to the corner store every week and you'll more than make up for it. Plus, in the winter months, the extra heat isn't wasted.
Lets see - my plasma uses 100 watts more than a comparable lcd. But I use a stand-alone player instead of a noisy energy-hogging ps3 or xbox, so it actually uses less than a ps3+lcd tv, and gives a better picture (the real reason for the yellow lcd pixel is because lcds don't have anywhere near the color range of plasma displays).
But let's just take an apples-to-apples comparison - OTA TV viewing.
From this list, my LG 50PS60 is rated at 295 watts. All but one of the smaller (47") lcd tvs is withing 30-45 watts of that (the only exception is an older model). So, let's go whole-hog, and say 50 watts extra. If the TV were left on 24/7, that would be an extra 438 kw/h a year. At 7 cents a kw/h, that's an extra $30.66, for 24/7 operation. Let's go nuts and put it at 10 cents per kw/h. That would still be less than $50 a year.
Of course, most days I don't even turn it on, but 175 hours a month (just under 6 hours a day) would cost only an extra buck a month. Aand when you consider that most days I don't even turn it on ..., the difference in electrical costs is a rounding error.
Of course, I could take it out of energy-saving mode and it would cost $2 extra a month. Big deal. Bumping everything up
>I'm not 100% sure here, but aren't media formatted for PAL regions in 25 fps?
Depends. Yes (for video) no (for film)
To further complicate matters, the "120hz" lcd is advertised as "100hz" in PAL regions.
The real reason for the yellow pixel is that lcds have far less of a color range than plasma tvs to begin with. Just buy a plasma tv. It costs a bit more, but you won't hear people complaining about the "soap opera effect", poor viewing angles,or other problems.
By the way, you also don't seem to understand that the pixel doesn't "turn on and off" on an LCD display - it just blocks the light from the backlight - which is a fluorescent bulb (the same technology that gives you eyestrain at the office). Or, in the case of an LED TV, an LED panel. And because the crystal is allowing light to pass through for a longer period of time, it's more susceptible to motion blur.
You could try drinking until your eyes cross - Windows has been known to do that to people ... it won't make Windows run any better, but it will dull the pain :-)
Spend the few bucks more and buy a plasma. You won't get the "soap opera effect", and you'll have a rock-steady picture.
The "refresh rate" is set by the flourescent light in your back panel - not the lcd crystal shutters. Just like the "LED TV" is just an LCD tv with an LED for a backlight instead of one or more flourescent lights. That's why they all end up looking like crap in comparison to a plasma - where each pixel is made up of 3 separate emitters, no backlight, no diffusion panel, no light bleed when you stand near it and look down (or at too great an angle on the horizontal axis), and inherent reduced motion blur because the image is strobed, same as a crt
Then the math really doesn't work. 3 extra frames brings it up to 27fps. Unless you're saying throw in 3 frames for every frame, which gives ... 96 frames. Still doesn't work. With 5:1 frames get 120 fps, which works, but the interpolation process will always produce artifacts, just like upscaling isn't as good as "the real thing." Of course, if you like the "soap opera effect", more power to you, but plenty of people disagree.
LCD screens are lighter - my 50" plasma might weigh a lot more, but it's on a swivel stand, so moving it takes one finger.
LCD screens are thinner - not much thinner, and most people spend their time looking at the front, not the side.
LCD screens are more efficient - depends. Hook it up to a playstation to watch a blu-ray, and you've more than lost any "efficiency" claim. The playstation burns 188 watts to decode blu-ray disks, while a stand-alone blu-ray player only uses 10 to 13 (and a lot less when on standby). Plasmas also don't have to produce more light than required, then selectively block it from each pixel (which is one reason why blacks are blacker on plasmas - no bleed from adjacent pixels, and no light leakage when you stand near them and look down). Turn the room lights off and put it in economy mode. Get a Wii (peak wattage is 18, as opposed the the 184 wattss for the playstation).
For the little TV viewing I do, we're talking pennies a month, and in the winter I recoup that from the heat generated (electricity from hydro power) - which reminds me, they're calling for snow tonight and tomorrow - so maybe I should invite people over to do some TV watching or play some pinball or snowboarding or air guitar and warm the place up - 6 people running around is almost 2,000 btus, throw in another 1,000 btus from waste heat from the plasma and sound system, and another couple hundred from the dogs and I might not have to turn the heating on :-)
There's still a source of flicker, since the lcd only blocks or unblocks the rear light source at the same (or twice) the frequency of the flourescent light beat frequency.
Try using one of the older 60hz lcds in an office and tell me your eyeballs aren't bleeding at the end of the day.
It doesn't matter if the lcds response time were instantaneous - the flicker effect is still there.
When I bought my 50", I figured it was big enough that I'd re-arrange the furniture to give the optimum viewing, taking into account windows and light sources; glare is pretty much non-existent (or for the lazy slashdotters and those who can't cut glare down any other way, just don't dust it :-)
I actually bought it for playing Wii games, of all things. I was going to opt for a cheaper 720p, but then I said to myself "What the heck", and the difference with 1080p is like night and day, despite everyone saying that there wouldn't be a difference (easy comparison - my neighbor has a 50" 720p plasma).
Yes, plasmas cost more, but you know something? Amortized over 10 years (3,640 days), a difference of, say, $500, is a buck a week. Throw out the cable or satellite box and buy a cheap antenna and you'll save enough to buy a blu-ray player, a stack of movies, a game console, and lots of games (or just stream hi-def content from your laptop). It just amazes me how many people think you need either cable or satellite tv to use an hd tv.
If you're using an lcd, it doesn't matter - your image quality still sucks compared to a plasma for lots of reasons. Plasma still:
I can stand right next to my plasma and I don't have issues with light leaking around "dark" pixels, or color being off because of the viewing angle, that even supertwist lcds have.
I did my research before I bought ... and not only don't I regret it - my friends who are in the market are sold on it even over the 240hz lcds.
The input is either 30 or 60 frames per second. The image interpolation you're referring to is the 24fps "movie" thing - not the same thing at all. Movies aren't interlaced, but your copy of it (if it's an old tape or dvd - the dvd-v spec requires it) is. de-interlacing always sucks.
Also, a 600hz plasma under flourescent lighting still looks dead-steady, even with your peripheral vision (which is more sensitive to beat-frequency flicker).
The other advantage (and one that even the review admits that the sharp fares worse) is blacker blacks, since the individual pixels are energized 600x/second, instead of 60, they can be made smaller, resulting in more black space on the panel, for deeper blacks.
$12/hr isn't below the minimum wage in Florida ($7.25/hr)