Can RP really compete with LCD?

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Father John A, Mar 31, 2007.

  1. Father John A

    Father John A Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    About 2 months ago I was decided on picking up a 46" DLP to tide me over, something in the $1K range. I dropped that idea mostly because viewing angle is important to me.

    Now the LCDs are dropping faster than I expected and the 40"-42" are in the same price range. I am fairly sensitive to motion artifacts so LCDs have usually turned me off but I assume that will improve rather quickly with the newer sets that will come out in the following months.

    My point; other than Plasma, what can really compete with LCD? I know that RPs (LCD, LCoS & DLP) have great pictures and huge screen per dollar but that looks to be quickly fading especially with giants like Sony pushing LCD. I mean, would anyone really pick RP over LCD if the cost were the same? All the current faults (black levels, motion artifacts, jaggies, etc) of LCD will most likely be beat sooner than later and where will that leave RPs?
     
  2. ChrisWiggles

    ChrisWiggles Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    4,791
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, RPTVs come in various varieties, including LCD-based, so the pluses and minuses depend heavily on the type of RPTV you're talking about. You omitted CRT based RPTV from your list, in which case the differences between those and the digitals listed are likely to be more significant than the difference between the digitals and say a direct-view LCD.

    Obviously the benefits of an RPTV are greater screen size potential, mainly, say between a direct view LCD and an RPTV LCD.
     
  3. CoolCatbro

    CoolCatbro Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can relate. The dropping prices. According to a business tracking company, some large retailers mentioned they expect HDTV's to continue dropping in price every 3 months for some time.

    not a bad problem, but it does add a strange variable to the financially concerned customer.

    one TV company was actually losing money just to maintain Marketshare. Thats how crazy, this booming business is at the moment.

    It will all settle down once the companies get together and decide to fix the prices, like anything....they all want to make a profit.

    geez..it wasn't 5 years ago DLP's were $7000 or more!!
    then it went $3500....

    now it's still dropping. LCD's will be the same, especially if Samsung and Sony want them to be. (openning the joint venture LCD factory for larger screens)

    I think LCD marketshare grew 300%. Guy at Circuit City said LCD's are outselling everything at the moment.

    Not that it's the best technology or best picture, it's just selling.

    So how long does one wait though? 1 year? 3 months? 5 years?

    I forget how many billions of bucks are to be made on HDTV over the next few years, its huge,,,,I'd be happy with .000001% of that kind of money pool!!
     
  4. Ed Moxley

    Ed Moxley Cinematographer

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Eastern NC
    Real Name:
    Ed
    I've seen only one LCD tv, that I liked the picture on, with an HD signal. It was a 46" Sony Bravia 1080p set. You could still see some jaggies, in some of the scenes. Every other LCD I've seen, had a fuzzy picture, even with an HD signal going to them. I prefer the RP LCD for picture, over the LCD. I prefer the LCoS tvs (for picture), over all others. As usual, this is just my opinion. [​IMG]
     
  5. Tim Hess

    Tim Hess Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    LCD TV are the 'cheap' HDTV, that is why they sell. The masses know that it will be 'better' than what they have.
     
  6. Father John A

    Father John A Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0

    No idea what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that LCD in general are worse but cheap hence the "masses" will buy into it?

    If so I can say I am not one of those masses. I'm not only only leaning toward 1080p LCD but pretty much totally sold on it:

    - prices are falling
    - black levels are improving
    - rare if any motion artifacts with much lower response times
    - off angle is great
    - no burn-in
    - very nice PQ
    - no bulbs

    What's not to like? By summer end I think these will be very hard to beat. The new Sammy's sound fantastic.
     
  7. SeanA

    SeanA Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've always found LCD monitors have an unnatural look. Colors seem to have an artificial glow and still do, even with some of the improvements mentioned.
     
  8. Joseph Bolus

    Joseph Bolus Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 1999
    Messages:
    2,402
    Likes Received:
    134
    It seems simple to me.

    * If you want a picture larger than 65", go front projection.

    * If you want a 65" size set, but don't want to fool with the hassles of front projection, then go with a DLP-based RPTV. (This is the best "bang-for-the-buck" configuration currently out there.)

    * If you want something in the 42" size range - and it *has* to be mounted over the fireplace - then go with plasma for its wider viewing angles.

    * For all other applications: Go LCD!
     
  9. Father John A

    Father John A Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm going to apologize right now (sincerely) in case I'm reading this wrong but it sounds rather snide. It seems that all your comments are directed at putting LCD at the bottom of the barrel. It also comes off as if those of us leaning in that direction are pretty ignorant.
     
  10. Joseph Bolus

    Joseph Bolus Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 1999
    Messages:
    2,402
    Likes Received:
    134

    Well ... Sorry if it seemed that way. I was merely trying to point out that the other technologies still do serve a function under certain narrow niches. And I *really* do believe that in the 65" inch picture range a DLP-based RPTV currently provides a more cost effective option than LCD.

    In almost any other configuration that you can think of - from 56" screen sizes to 42" flat panels mounted at eye level - LCD is currently the better choice; and I'm cetainly *not* going to even try to debate that.
     
  11. DonaldB

    DonaldB Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2000
    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    0
    The misinformation about burn-in on plasmas coming from LCD zealots is impressive. One has to really abuse a plasma set to even get image retention, much less burn-in, on them. It's a shame to be so paranoid about a non-existent problem that one's willing to settle for a much inferior display. The picture quality on LCDs is just unacceptable by any reasonably demanding standard. They're okay for web-browsing, I guess.
     
  12. Father John A

    Father John A Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm certainly not a zealot. I wasn't even considering LCDs a few months back. Burn in is a real issue by the way especially if you have kids. Doesn't matter what I do, everytime I come in the room the TV is on and uasually paused.

    I suppose that your comments about "much inferior" and "just unacceptable" make you a plasma zealot. They don't make you very objective though.

    Lastly, I certainly didn't ding plasmas, in fact I started the thread by placing them on a par with LCDs. The fact that I mentioned one of the known problems doesn't make me anti-plasma. In fact, if I didn't have kids I'd be getting one now, they are cheaper per inch than the good LCDs.

    I am glad that you are impressed however.
     

Share This Page