This is the best LCD I have seen

[RobH]

I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their broadcast of
SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has a
6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for over
the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD channels.
Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little time
for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.

http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf

[scowart@mail.arc.nasa.gov]

RobH wrote:
> I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
> amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their broadcast of
> SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has a
> 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for over
> the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD channels.
> Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little time
> for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
>
> http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
Excellent tv.

Sharp also puts out excellent 1080p LCD sets. The best LCD set I've
seen is a Sharp Aquos 45" 1080p LCD set. Sony is also coming on
strong, after getting a late start.

[Bib]

Got a Sharp AQUOS LC-37D90U three weeks ago. 1080P yes! HD Cable at 1080i
simply by plugging in. By my aging eyes there is nothing close to clarity
other than bigger version of same. Went with 37" as front of house is
mostly glass and the Aquos is against the one spot where there is 40" of
wall. Zero glare on the screen regardless of light conditions.
Impatiently waiting arrival of Denon DVD-2930CI DVD/CD/SACD/DVD-Audio
Player with 1080p video upconversion. September supposedly. Never had a
single moment of buyer's remorse.

--
Big Island Bob

[John]

I paid Best Buy $1500 for a 42" Westinghouse (LVM42W2) 1080P LCD a month ago
and I am very happy with this purchase. After watching it for a month, I am
still amazed of the colors from the HD channels. The PC looks great too.
It is like having a big LCD monitor.




"RobH" > wrote in message
...
>I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
> amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their broadcast
> of
> SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has a
> 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for over
> the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD channels.
> Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little time
> for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
>
> http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf

[Tom Horsley]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:03:30 -0400, John wrote:

> I paid Best Buy $1500 for a 42" Westinghouse (LVM42W2) 1080P LCD a month ago
> and I am very happy with this purchase. After watching it for a month, I am
> still amazed of the colors from the HD channels. The PC looks great too.
> It is like having a big LCD monitor.

It isn't like a big monitor, it *is* a big monitor :-).

I friend of mine who in interested in the 47" westy kept
bugging best buy to see if they would get them in stock
and was told they aren't going to carry any of them
anymore because people kept buying them and returning
them because they couldn't get TV on them (which seems
like a reason to move them over to the computer section,
not a reason to stop selling them).

I love mine because it is just a monitor. Who needs
the expensive OTA receiver and cable card slots and other
junk that just makes it cost more? I'm gonna get all my
signals from a computer or cable box anyway...

[Roger]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:58:48 GMT, Tom Horsley
> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:03:30 -0400, John wrote:
>
>> I paid Best Buy $1500 for a 42" Westinghouse (LVM42W2) 1080P LCD a month ago
>> and I am very happy with this purchase. After watching it for a month, I am
>> still amazed of the colors from the HD channels. The PC looks great too.
>> It is like having a big LCD monitor.
>
>It isn't like a big monitor, it *is* a big monitor :-).
>
>I friend of mine who in interested in the 47" westy kept
>bugging best buy to see if they would get them in stock
>and was told they aren't going to carry any of them
>anymore because people kept buying them and returning
>them because they couldn't get TV on them (which seems
>like a reason to move them over to the computer section,
>not a reason to stop selling them).

I believe that any TV sets over 32", or 37" (I've forgotten the
current limit which is going down with time) sold as TV sets are
required to have a built in tuner. I don't know how they handle the
"monitor" issue.
>
>I love mine because it is just a monitor. Who needs
>the expensive OTA receiver and cable card slots and other
>junk that just makes it cost more? I'm gonna get all my
>signals from a computer or cable box anyway...

Yah, but the big screens don't have the resolution of the really good
computer monitors, but then again they aren't usually viewed from as
close a range either.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[scowart@mail.arc.nasa.gov]

> I believe that any TV sets over 32", or 37" (I've forgotten the
> current limit which is going down with time) sold as TV sets are
> required to have a built in tuner. I don't know how they handle the
> "monitor" issue.
Yep. If they call it a tv, it's got to have an internal digital tuner
for those sizes.

[Deke]

"RobH" > wrote in message
...
> I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
> amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their broadcast
of
> SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has a
> 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for over
> the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD channels.
> Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little time
> for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
>
> http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf

LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades of
grey.
Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their home.
Find a JVC dealer and go look. Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a big box
store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad. True story.
Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from the
screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.

Deke

[Deke]

"ToMh" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Deke wrote:
> > "RobH" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
> > > amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their
broadcast
> > of
> > > SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has
a
> > > 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for
over
> > > the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD
channels.
> > > Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little
time
> > > for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
> > >
> > > http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
> >
> > LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
> > A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
> > with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
> > And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades of
> > grey.
>
> Kind of hard to hang on the wall. The LCDs I've been looking at, the
> blacks looked pretty good. Pictures actually looked brighter and
> sharper, and they have a much better viewing angle, and you can hang
> them on the wall! Pretty cool not to have a big honkin TV taking up
> floor space.

Say what? Youre buying something because you can hang it on the wall?
Dude! The JVC only weighs around 100 pounds. Build a shelf! Buy a stand!
Picture quality is what counts, not the fact that you can hang something on
the wall.




>
> > Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
> > The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their home.
> > Find a JVC dealer and go look.
>
> I have a friend who bought a new Toshiba DLP. He has gone through two
> bulbs
> in less than a year, under waranty, but he's still not too thrilled.
> The LCDs light source is rated 50-60,000 hours. That's like 22 years,
> but who knows.

Irrelevant. Toshiba is not a JVC. Different technology.
Different bulb. Under warranty anyway.
>
> > Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a big box
> > store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad. True
story.
> > Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from the
> > screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.
> >
>
> Costco Carries them, probably not the top of line version, but they did
> look nice.

Now you get it! Go buy one! Only they dont look nice...they look
incredible.

[ToMh]

Deke wrote:
> "ToMh" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Deke wrote:
> > > "RobH" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
> > > > amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their
> broadcast
> > > of
> > > > SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has
> a
> > > > 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for
> over
> > > > the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD
> channels.
> > > > Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little
> time
> > > > for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
> > >
> > > LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
> > > A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
> > > with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
> > > And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades of
> > > grey.
> >
> > Kind of hard to hang on the wall. The LCDs I've been looking at, the
> > blacks looked pretty good. Pictures actually looked brighter and
> > sharper, and they have a much better viewing angle, and you can hang
> > them on the wall! Pretty cool not to have a big honkin TV taking up
> > floor space.
>
> Say what? Youre buying something because you can hang it on the wall?
> Dude! The JVC only weighs around 100 pounds. Build a shelf! Buy a stand!
> Picture quality is what counts, not the fact that you can hang something on
> the wall.
>
>

It's important to me. Don't want a huge shelf or stand. Besides, the
picture didn't really look any better to me. If you have to stare at
one, look at another, and keep going back and forth trying to decide
which one looks better, then the difference isn't enough to worry
about.

>
>
> >
> > > Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
> > > The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their home.
> > > Find a JVC dealer and go look.
> >
> > I have a friend who bought a new Toshiba DLP. He has gone through two
> > bulbs
> > in less than a year, under waranty, but he's still not too thrilled.
> > The LCDs light source is rated 50-60,000 hours. That's like 22 years,
> > but who knows.
>
> Irrelevant. Toshiba is not a JVC. Different technology.
> Different bulb. Under warranty anyway.
> >

Only for a year! Point is you really don't know how long those bulbs
will last and at 2-3 hundred a pop, the rear projections could be more
expensive over a few years, but then again I really don't know about
the longevity of LCD either, but I have a feeling they will be more
reliable than rear projections.


> > > Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a big box
> > > store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad. True
> story.
> > > Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from the
> > > screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.
> > >
> >
> > Costco Carries them, probably not the top of line version, but they did
> > look nice.
>
> Now you get it! Go buy one! Only they dont look nice...they look
> incredible.

I did compare, and decided on LCD. Personal preference. People just
have different
criteria for a TV.

[scowart@mail.arc.nasa.gov]

ToMh wrote:
> It's important to me. Don't want a huge shelf or stand. Besides, the
> picture didn't really look any better to me. If you have to stare at
> one, look at another, and keep going back and forth trying to decide
> which one looks better, then the difference isn't enough to worry
> about.
>
> >
> Only for a year! Point is you really don't know how long those bulbs
> will last and at 2-3 hundred a pop, the rear projections could be more
> expensive over a few years, but then again I really don't know about
> the longevity of LCD either, but I have a feeling they will be more
> reliable than rear projections.
>
> I did compare, and decided on LCD. Personal preference. People just
> have different
> criteria for a TV.
I agree on all fronts. I am first and foremost a crt fan. But,
obviously that's gotta change. I recently helped a buddy select his
first HD set. Knowing his preference for crt picture quality, and also
that he wanted to hang it on the wall of his family room, I recommended
Plasma (for blacks). We narrowed our choices down to 2 Plasma sets,
one from Panasonic and the other from Samsung. On our last day of
looking around a Sharp Aquos 45" 1080p LCD set caught his eye. This
set retailed for $4,999 and was on sale for $3,999. In all honesty,
the "blacks" were outstanding. Not exactly equal to crt or Plasma, but
awfully darn close. And the other elements that make for good picture
quality were all there. And, it had two digital interfaces so he could
also use it as a computer monitor. He bought it, and I calibrated it
for him. I also tested it with the HQV Benchmark DVD and it passed all
tests with flying colors.

LCD has arrived, at least at the top level of offerings.

[David]

"Bib" > wrote in message ...
> Got a Sharp AQUOS LC-37D90U three weeks ago. 1080P yes! HD Cable at
> 1080i
> simply by plugging in. By my aging eyes there is nothing close to clarity
> other than bigger version of same. Went with 37" as front of house is
> mostly glass and the Aquos is against the one spot where there is 40" of
> wall. Zero glare on the screen regardless of light conditions.
> Impatiently waiting arrival of Denon DVD-2930CI DVD/CD/SACD/DVD-Audio
> Player with 1080p video upconversion. September supposedly. Never had a
> single moment of buyer's remorse.
>
> --
> Big Island Bob


Sounds like good setup.

LCD rocks in bright rooms.

Big Island, huh? You lucky dog....

[David]

"Deke" <no > wrote in message
...
>
> "RobH" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
>> amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their broadcast
> of
>> SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has a
>> 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for
>> over
>> the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD
>> channels.
>> Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little time
>> for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
>>
>> http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
>
> LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
> A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
> with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
> And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades of
> grey.
> Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
> The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their home.
> Find a JVC dealer and go look. Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a big box
> store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad. True
> story.
> Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from the
> screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.
>
> Deke
>

I sure believe you, and here's a pic of one of it's grandaddies:

http://www.ciao.co.uk/JVC_DLA_G10__5396837

I've got four of them. :-)

[Bob (but not THAT Bob)]

John wrote:
>
> I paid Best Buy $1500 for a 42" Westinghouse (LVM42W2) 1080P LCD a month ago
> and I am very happy with this purchase. After watching it for a month, I am
> still amazed of the colors from the HD channels. The PC looks great too.
> It is like having a big LCD monitor.
>

It's unbeatable for the $1500 price we got them at, and when something
better comes along, I'll have a dandy PC monitor.

[Bob (but not THAT Bob)]

Deke wrote:
>
> "RobH" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
> > amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their broadcast
> of
> > SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has a
> > 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for over
> > the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD channels.
> > Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little time
> > for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
> >
> > http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
>
> LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
> A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
> with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
> And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades of
> grey.
> Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?


Let's see... 60,000 hrs - check back in about 30 yrs.


> The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their home.
> Find a JVC dealer and go look. Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a big box
> store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad. True story.
> Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from the
> screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.
>


But RPTV looks hideous, even if yours is best of the steaming pile.

[BDK]

In article >, says...
> Deke wrote:
> >
> > "RobH" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
> > > amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their broadcast
> > of
> > > SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has a
> > > 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for over
> > > the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD channels.
> > > Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little time
> > > for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
> > >
> > > http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
> >
> > LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
> > A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
> > with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
> > And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades of
> > grey.
> > Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
>
>
> Let's see... 60,000 hrs - check back in about 30 yrs.
>
>
> > The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their home.
> > Find a JVC dealer and go look. Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a big box
> > store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad. True story.
> > Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from the
> > screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.
> >
>
>
> But RPTV looks hideous, even if yours is best of the steaming pile.
>

I agree, I would take any plasma or LCD over any RPTV. I looked at a ton
of them when I was looking for a new TV, and they all looked bad in one
way or another.

BDK

[Bob]

"BDK" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, says...
>> Deke wrote:
>> >
>> > "RobH" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture
>> > > was
>> > > amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their
>> > > broadcast
>> > of
>> > > SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has
>> > > a
>> > > 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for
>> > > over
>> > > the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD
>> > > channels.
>> > > Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little
>> > > time
>> > > for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
>> > >
>> > > http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
>> >
>> > LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
>> > A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
>> > with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
>> > And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades
>> > of
>> > grey.
>> > Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
>>
>>
>> Let's see... 60,000 hrs - check back in about 30 yrs.
>>
>>
>> > The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their home.
>> > Find a JVC dealer and go look. Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a big
>> > box
>> > store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad. True
>> > story.
>> > Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from
>> > the
>> > screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.
>> >
>>
>>
>> But RPTV looks hideous, even if yours is best of the steaming pile.
>>
>
> I agree, I would take any plasma or LCD over any RPTV. I looked at a ton
> of them when I was looking for a new TV, and they all looked bad in one
> way or another.
>
> BDK

Just got a Sony 46" XBR2 ( 1080P) LCD last night and even SD broadcasts look
great. Tried a Samsung 46" ( 4692D 720P) for the last 10 days and SD looked
lousy...the Sony ( granted cost much more) looks really good...HD is
amazing. LCD's have come a long way.
(Another) Bob

[BDK]

In article >,
says...
>
> "BDK" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, says...
> >> Deke wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "RobH" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > > I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture
> >> > > was
> >> > > amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their
> >> > > broadcast
> >> > of
> >> > > SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has
> >> > > a
> >> > > 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for
> >> > > over
> >> > > the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD
> >> > > channels.
> >> > > Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little
> >> > > time
> >> > > for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
> >> >
> >> > LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
> >> > A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
> >> > with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
> >> > And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades
> >> > of
> >> > grey.
> >> > Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
> >>
> >>
> >> Let's see... 60,000 hrs - check back in about 30 yrs.
> >>
> >>
> >> > The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their home.
> >> > Find a JVC dealer and go look. Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a big
> >> > box
> >> > store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad. True
> >> > story.
> >> > Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from
> >> > the
> >> > screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> But RPTV looks hideous, even if yours is best of the steaming pile.
> >>
> >
> > I agree, I would take any plasma or LCD over any RPTV. I looked at a ton
> > of them when I was looking for a new TV, and they all looked bad in one
> > way or another.
> >
> > BDK
>
> Just got a Sony 46" XBR2 ( 1080P) LCD last night and even SD broadcasts look
> great. Tried a Samsung 46" ( 4692D 720P) for the last 10 days and SD looked
> lousy...the Sony ( granted cost much more) looks really good...HD is
> amazing. LCD's have come a long way.
> (Another) Bob
>
>
>
>


I bought a Sharp LC37D40, I liked the pic over all the rest that I
looked at, including Sony XBR and Samsung, LG, and a couple of the
cheaper brands. One thing the Sharp seems to do better than any of the
others was green, as in realistic looking green. A couple of the ones I
looked at, no matter how great they looked otherwise, couldn't do a
green that didn't look fake. Some that didn't look so great couldn't
even come close to a true looking green.

Some of the sets I looked at were more "punchy" than the Sharp, but when
they were calibrated, the Sharp always won or tied for 1st place, and if
the material is great, it is too. The space shuttle launch was amazing.
So are the non-narrated nature shows on Discovery HD Theatre. There was
a migrating bird thing on HDnet(I think) a couple days ago, and my dogs
were staring at it like they were in the back yard. They both hate
birds, and seeing "giant" ones really got their attention.

I couldn't see the point in waiting for the D90(1080P) to show up
locally and pay an extra 5-600 bucks for it. I can live for a long time
with 720P and 1080I.

So far, at about 2 months old, I'm very, very happy with it.

B

[Deke]

"Bob (but not THAT Bob)" > wrote in message
...
> Deke wrote:
> >
> > "RobH" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
> > > amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their
broadcast
> > of
> > > SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has
a
> > > 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for
over
> > > the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD
channels.
> > > Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little
time
> > > for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
> > >
> > > http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
> >
> > LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
> > A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
> > with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
> > And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades of
> > grey.
> > Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
>
>
> Let's see... 60,000 hrs - check back in about 30 yrs.
>
>
> > The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their home.
> > Find a JVC dealer and go look. Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a big
box
> > store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad. True
story.
> > Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from the
> > screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.
> >
>
>
> But RPTV looks hideous, even if yours is best of the steaming pile.


Uh-Huh.......That must be why its been around so long.
And youve never seen a HD-ILA, have you?

[Randy Yates]

"Deke" <no > writes:
> [...]
> Uh-Huh.......That must be why its been around so long.
> And youve never seen a HD-ILA, have you?

I have a Toshiba 65" 65H81 (RPTV) and I love it. Had it for almost
four years now.

What is "HD-ILA"?
--
% Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% > % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Bob (but not THAT Bob)]

Deke wrote:
>
> "Bob (but not THAT Bob)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Deke wrote:
> > >
> > > "RobH" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
> > > > amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their
> broadcast
> > > of
> > > > SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has
> a
> > > > 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for
> over
> > > > the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD
> channels.
> > > > Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little
> time
> > > > for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
> > >
> > > LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
> > > A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
> > > with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
> > > And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades of
> > > grey.
> > > Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
> >
> >
> > Let's see... 60,000 hrs - check back in about 30 yrs.
> >
> >
> > > The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their home.
> > > Find a JVC dealer and go look. Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a big
> box
> > > store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad. True
> story.
> > > Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from the
> > > screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.
> > >
> >
> >
> > But RPTV looks hideous, even if yours is best of the steaming pile.
>
> Uh-Huh.......That must be why its been around so long.
> And youve never seen a HD-ILA, have you?


RPTVs have been around so long because it was the ONLY all-in-one big
screen technology until recently.

Once LCD or plasma or SED flat panels become available at comparable
prices, RP will die a well-deserved death.

Of course I've seen them, and although I've always bought JVC - I still
hate the "look" of RPTV, regardless of how good an example of RPTV it
is.

[Alan]

In article > "Deke" <no > writes:
>
>"Bob (but not THAT Bob)" > wrote in message
...

>> But RPTV looks hideous, even if yours is best of the steaming pile.
>
>
>Uh-Huh.......That must be why its been around so long.
>And youve never seen a HD-ILA, have you?

I have seen them, and while they are probably about the best in the pile, they
still are rear projection. They still have images that fade as you get off-angle
from them. They still are not quite as sharp as direct view.

RP has been around for a long time because it was the cheapest (and about the
only practical) way to get a big image when the sources were CRTs. Those 60 inch
4x3 color CRTs would have been astoundingly expensive if they were to have been built.

Nobody has explained the operating temperature of the HD-ILA imager -- what happens
to all the light energy when the screen is dark? It appears that it just heats that
little device. How long can they last with that sort of abuse?

Alan

[Alan]

In article om> writes:

>I agree on all fronts. I am first and foremost a crt fan. But,
>obviously that's gotta change. I recently helped a buddy select his
>first HD set. Knowing his preference for crt picture quality, and also
>that he wanted to hang it on the wall of his family room, I recommended
>Plasma (for blacks). We narrowed our choices down to 2 Plasma sets,
>one from Panasonic and the other from Samsung. On our last day of
>looking around a Sharp Aquos 45" 1080p LCD set caught his eye. This
>set retailed for $4,999 and was on sale for $3,999. In all honesty,
>the "blacks" were outstanding. Not exactly equal to crt or Plasma, but
>awfully darn close. And the other elements that make for good picture
>quality were all there. And, it had two digital interfaces so he could
>also use it as a computer monitor. He bought it, and I calibrated it
>for him. I also tested it with the HQV Benchmark DVD and it passed all
>tests with flying colors.
>
>LCD has arrived, at least at the top level of offerings.


The bad news seems to be that the Sharp Aquos LC-45GD7U (and D5U) are disappearing
from the listings and from Sharp's 2006 product catalog.

Their current 45 inch models are 768 line instead of 1080. They have 1080 in
smaller and larger sizes, but their new 45 inchers are lower resolution.

I wonder what is going on.

Alan


p.s. the 65 inch was impressive when I saw it, but that was more money than I
have to put into a television set.

[BDK]

In article >,
says...
> In article om> writes:
>
> >I agree on all fronts. I am first and foremost a crt fan. But,
> >obviously that's gotta change. I recently helped a buddy select his
> >first HD set. Knowing his preference for crt picture quality, and also
> >that he wanted to hang it on the wall of his family room, I recommended
> >Plasma (for blacks). We narrowed our choices down to 2 Plasma sets,
> >one from Panasonic and the other from Samsung. On our last day of
> >looking around a Sharp Aquos 45" 1080p LCD set caught his eye. This
> >set retailed for $4,999 and was on sale for $3,999. In all honesty,
> >the "blacks" were outstanding. Not exactly equal to crt or Plasma, but
> >awfully darn close. And the other elements that make for good picture
> >quality were all there. And, it had two digital interfaces so he could
> >also use it as a computer monitor. He bought it, and I calibrated it
> >for him. I also tested it with the HQV Benchmark DVD and it passed all
> >tests with flying colors.
> >
> >LCD has arrived, at least at the top level of offerings.
>
>
> The bad news seems to be that the Sharp Aquos LC-45GD7U (and D5U) are disappearing
> from the listings and from Sharp's 2006 product catalog.
>
> Their current 45 inch models are 768 line instead of 1080. They have 1080 in
> smaller and larger sizes, but their new 45 inchers are lower resolution.
>
> I wonder what is going on.
>
> Alan
>
>
> p.s. the 65 inch was impressive when I saw it, but that was more money than I
> have to put into a television set.
>


All that will be rectified in the fall, new models are coming and they
look great, judging by what I've seen on them.

BDK

[David]

"Alan" > wrote in message
...
> In article > "Deke" <no
> > writes:
>>
>>"Bob (but not THAT Bob)" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> But RPTV looks hideous, even if yours is best of the steaming pile.
>>Uh-Huh.......That must be why its been around so long.
>>And youve never seen a HD-ILA, have you?
>
> I have seen them, and while they are probably about the best in the pile,
> they
> still are rear projection. They still have images that fade as you get
> off-angle
> from them. They still are not quite as sharp as direct view.
>
> RP has been around for a long time because it was the cheapest (and about
> the
> only practical) way to get a big image when the sources were CRTs. Those
> 60 inch
> 4x3 color CRTs would have been astoundingly expensive if they were to have
> been built.
>
> Nobody has explained the operating temperature of the HD-ILA imager --
> what happens
> to all the light energy when the screen is dark? It appears that it just
> heats that
> little device. How long can they last with that sort of abuse?
>
> Alan


I think a lot of that heat is absorbed before the light gets to the actual
device.
This fun site uses flash to show animations of the light paths.

http://optics.unaxis.com/en/LCOS_3_538.asp

[John Johnson]

>Just got a Sony 46" XBR2 ( 1080P) LCD last night and even SD broadcasts look
>great. Tried a Samsung 46" ( 4692D 720P) for the last 10 days and SD looked
>lousy...the Sony ( granted cost much more) looks really good...HD is
>amazing. LCD's have come a long way.
>(Another) Bob
>

I looked at tvs in at least 5 different stores and by a margin the
Sony XRB's were the best sets. All had the clearest and most detailed
pictures.
I didn't want to pay the high price and tried to find something close
but never could so found it a cheaper on line and got it. And I knew
if I got another I would always wonder.

Since I bought it the prices have dropped.
>

[Matthew L. Martin]

Bob (but not THAT Bob) wrote:

> Deke wrote:
>
>>"RobH" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
>>>amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their broadcast
>>
>>of
>>
>>>SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has a
>>>6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for over
>>>the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD channels.
>>>Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little time
>>>for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
>>>
>>>http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
>>
>>LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
>>A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
>>with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
>>And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades of
>>grey.
>>Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
>
>
>
> Let's see... 60,000 hrs - check back in about 30 yrs.

If that is MTBF, you are interpreting it wrong.

Matthew

--
You can bet that a week after Daguerre took the first photograph,
vendors were selling feelthy pictures on the streets of Paris.

Thomas A. Horsley on alt.tv.tech.hdtv

[BC]

"Bob (but not THAT Bob)" > wrote in message
...
> Deke wrote:
>>
>> "RobH" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture was
>> > amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their
>> > broadcast
>> of
>> > SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set has a
>> > 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC for
>> > over
>> > the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD
>> > channels.
>> > Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a little
>> > time
>> > for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
>> >
>> > http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
>>
>> LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
>> A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
>> with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
>> And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not shades of
>> grey.
>> Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
>
>
> Let's see... 60,000 hrs - check back in about 30 yrs.

Isn't that 60,000 hrs to HALF the brightness and not to burn out?

>
>
>> The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their home.
>> Find a JVC dealer and go look. Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a big
>> box
>> store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad. True
>> story.
>> Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from the
>> screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.
>>
>
>
> But RPTV looks hideous, even if yours is best of the steaming pile.
>

[Deke]

"Bob (but not THAT Bob)" > wrote in message
...
> Deke wrote:
> >
> > "Bob (but not THAT Bob)" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Deke wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "RobH" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > I saw one of these just put on display at Best Buy. The HD picture
was
> > > > > amazing. I still have issues with any LCD or Plasma with their
> > broadcast
> > > > of
> > > > > SD, and I was unable to see an SD broadcast on this set. This set
has
> > a
> > > > > 6000 to 1 contrast which rivals plasma contrast. Also has an ATSC
for
> > over
> > > > > the air HD and a DCR tuner so cable tuner not needed even for HD
> > channels.
> > > > > Samsung seems to be setting the standard for LCD. Just need a
little
> > time
> > > > > for the price to drop from its $3100 cost.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf
> > > >
> > > > LCD...BLEH! Plasma...BLEH!!
> > > > A JVC HD-ILA will eat its lunch, and provide a better picture,
> > > > with no screen door effect, and its cheaper. 56" is $2600, or less.
> > > > And it has one other thing that LCD cant provide...BLACKS, not
shades of
> > > > grey.
> > > > Watchagonna do when your LCD light source dies?
> > >
> > >
> > > Let's see... 60,000 hrs - check back in about 30 yrs.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The HD-ILA light source is replaceable, by the customer, in their
home.
> > > > Find a JVC dealer and go look. Its hard to find a JVC HD-ILA in a
big
> > box
> > > > store, because they make all the other TVs look soooo very bad.
True
> > story.
> > > > Go look for yourself. Get your nose up there about a foot away from
the
> > > > screen, and look. No pixels, no lines, no screen door.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But RPTV looks hideous, even if yours is best of the steaming pile.
> >
> > Uh-Huh.......That must be why its been around so long.
> > And youve never seen a HD-ILA, have you?
>
>
> RPTVs have been around so long because it was the ONLY all-in-one big
> screen technology until recently.
>
> Once LCD or plasma or SED flat panels become available at comparable
> prices, RP will die a well-deserved death.
>
> Of course I've seen them, and although I've always bought JVC - I still
> hate the "look" of RPTV, regardless of how good an example of RPTV it
> is.

So you are saying that a superior picture, as provided by a
RPTV, is bad just because its RPTV? Thats so wrong, on so many different
fronts.

I watched 2001, A Space Odyssey today, side by side, on a
LG 42" plasma, and a 53" JVC HD-ILA set this afternoon, sourced from DN. On
the plasma, no matter what you did, space was grey. On the JVC, it was jet
black. If you got close to the screen, the plasma picture became a bunch of
cells, surrounded by fine black lines, the "screen door effect" in
miniature. On the JVC, with my nose 6 inches from the screen, the picture
had no fine black lines, and while the compression artifacts were visible,
the picture was
like looking at a photograph. Fine detail was more apparent on the JVC,
perhaps made more visible by the increased contrast, and the ability to
produce jet black.
LCOS rules!
And I still believe you have never seen a JVC HD-ILA,
or we wouldnt be having this argument.

[Alan]

In article > "Deke" <no > writes:

>So you are saying that a superior picture, as provided by a
>RPTV, is bad just because its RPTV? Thats so wrong, on so many different
>fronts.


Nonsense. RPTV is dismal compared to the other choices. You cannot get around
the problems of the screen.


>I watched 2001, A Space Odyssey today, side by side, on a
>LG 42" plasma, and a 53" JVC HD-ILA set this afternoon, sourced from DN. On
>the plasma, no matter what you did, space was grey. On the JVC, it was jet
>black. If you got close to the screen, the plasma picture became a bunch of
>cells, surrounded by fine black lines, the "screen door effect" in
>miniature. On the JVC, with my nose 6 inches from the screen, the picture
>had no fine black lines, and while the compression artifacts were visible,
>the picture was
>like looking at a photograph. Fine detail was more apparent on the JVC,
>perhaps made more visible by the increased contrast, and the ability to
>produce jet black.
>LCOS rules!
>And I still believe you have never seen a JVC HD-ILA,
>or we wouldnt be having this argument.

I have seen them in several places. For example, there is one in Windy City
Pizza in San Mateo.

If you were close enough to see the "screen door effect", you were too close.

If you move a bit farther back, the spatial reconstruction filtering of your
visual system gives a better (sharper) image in the display with dark space
between the pixels.

And, you still don't understand the heat issue. The light that is sent to
the screen has energy - that light energy is either sent to the screen or converted
to heat in the imager. It cannot be filtered out in advance, because it is the
visible light that forms the image.


Alan

[Deke]

"Alan" > wrote in message
...
> In article > "Deke" <no
> writes:
>
> >So you are saying that a superior picture, as provided by a
> >RPTV, is bad just because its RPTV? Thats so wrong, on so many different
> >fronts.
>
>
> Nonsense. RPTV is dismal compared to the other choices. You cannot get
around
> the problems of the screen.

And of course you dont elaborate on what those problems are, do you? I
suppose eyeglasses, or sunglasses inherently destroy your vision also?
>
>
> >I watched 2001, A Space Odyssey today, side by side, on a
> >LG 42" plasma, and a 53" JVC HD-ILA set this afternoon, sourced from DN.
On
> >the plasma, no matter what you did, space was grey. On the JVC, it was
jet
> >black. If you got close to the screen, the plasma picture became a bunch
of
> >cells, surrounded by fine black lines, the "screen door effect" in
> >miniature. On the JVC, with my nose 6 inches from the screen, the
picture
> >had no fine black lines, and while the compression artifacts were
visible,
> >the picture was
> >like looking at a photograph. Fine detail was more apparent on the JVC,
> >perhaps made more visible by the increased contrast, and the ability to
> >produce jet black.
> >LCOS rules!
> >And I still believe you have never seen a JVC HD-ILA,
> >or we wouldnt be having this argument.
>
> I have seen them in several places. For example, there is one in Windy
City
> Pizza in San Mateo.

A pizza parlor? And thats what youre basing your argument on?
BWAHAHAHAHA!!
>
> If you were close enough to see the "screen door effect", you were too
close.
>
> If you move a bit farther back, the spatial reconstruction filtering of
your
> visual system gives a better (sharper) image in the display with dark
space
> between the pixels.


And that means the JVC HD-ILA has a better, sharper picture, because theres
no black spaces around the pixels as there is in plasma, or DLP, or LCD.
Get it?
LCOS requires NO BLACK SPACES between the pixels.
Its why "in-line" pictures were a huge improvement over the original three
dot matrix of the first color picture tubes. Not as much "blank" space,
more picture=sharper, brighter picture with more contrast.
So it stands to reason that if a picture looks good from a foot away, and
another picture doesnt look nearly as good, that means the better looking
picture will look better even farther away.


>
> And, you still don't understand the heat issue. The light that is sent
to
> the screen has energy - that light energy is either sent to the screen or
converted
> to heat in the imager. It cannot be filtered out in advance, because it
is the
> visible light that forms the image.
>
>
> Alan

Please dont tell me what I understand or dont understand.
With 58 years under my belt, some of which were spent as an electronics tech
both in the military and in private practice, I think I have a better grasp
of the technology of creating a TV picture than you do, even with your vast
knowledge of a tv in a pizza parlor.
And you do realized that in the electromagnetic spectrum,
visible light, and infrared (heat) are at different frequencies?
And that the heat is easily removed, especially after being split by a prism
and filtered, not to mention forced air cooling way before it reaches the
reflective silicon chips. There are three of them, BTW.
Your really dont know much about how TVs work, of whatever type, do you?

Deke

[Deke]

"Alan" > wrote in message
...
> In article > "Deke" <no
> writes:
> >
> >"Bob (but not THAT Bob)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> But RPTV looks hideous, even if yours is best of the steaming pile.
> >
> >
> >Uh-Huh.......That must be why its been around so long.
> >And youve never seen a HD-ILA, have you?
>
> I have seen them, and while they are probably about the best in the
pile, they
> still are rear projection. They still have images that fade as you get
off-angle
> from them. They still are not quite as sharp as direct view.

You fail to realize that LCOS rear projection is totally different from any
other technology. Its actually sharper than direct view......no scan lines.

> RP has been around for a long time because it was the cheapest (and
about the
> only practical) way to get a big image when the sources were CRTs. Those
60 inch
> 4x3 color CRTs would have been astoundingly expensive if they were to have
been built.


And in your world, front projection doesnt exist? Never been to a movie? I
was watching a 72 inch diagonal picture thrown by an Advent Novabeam
projector back in the early 80's, and it was an old technology then. Guess
you never heard of those before.




> Nobody has explained the operating temperature of the HD-ILA imager --
what happens
> to all the light energy when the screen is dark? It appears that it just
heats that
> little device. How long can they last with that sort of abuse?
>
> Alan

You still havent done your homework babyboy. Keep trying.
Can you say polarized beam splitter? Can you say No Color Wheel? Can you
say three distinct display chips? Keep trying.

BTW, I'd love to continue this conversation, but I'm packing up the motor
home and leaving for the lake in an hour or so.
Say hello to the experts at the pizza parlor for me.

[Alan]

In article > "Deke" <no > writes:
>
>"Alan" > wrote in message
>> I have seen them, and while they are probably about the best in the pile, they
>> still are rear projection. They still have images that fade as you get off-angle
>> from them. They still are not quite as sharp as direct view.
>
>You fail to realize that LCOS rear projection is totally different from any
>other technology. Its actually sharper than direct view......no scan lines.

No scan lines does not make it sharper.

>> RP has been around for a long time because it was the cheapest (and about the
>> only practical) way to get a big image when the sources were CRTs. Those 60 inch
>> 4x3 color CRTs would have been astoundingly expensive if they were to have been built.
>
>
>And in your world, front projection doesnt exist? Never been to a movie? I
>was watching a 72 inch diagonal picture thrown by an Advent Novabeam
>projector back in the early 80's, and it was an old technology then. Guess
>you never heard of those before.

Heard of them, seen them, and in fact, a friend of mine had one.

Kind of fun in the darkened room that was needed.

Did you see the word "practical"? Did you look at the price of the Advent?
Did you try to maintain convergence on one?

Speaking of front projectors, ever hear of Barco? Ever fly on an airliner with
front projected video?

Lots of that stuff around. Rear projection cost less, and was far more practical
for the home consumer.




>
>> Nobody has explained the operating temperature of the HD-ILA imager -- what happens
>> to all the light energy when the screen is dark? It appears that it just heats that
>> little device. How long can they last with that sort of abuse?
>
>You still havent done your homework babyboy. Keep trying.
>Can you say polarized beam splitter?

Polarized beam splitters do not make the light have no energy. If there is no
energy in the light, the screen is dark.

> Can you say No Color Wheel?

Not relevant. There is no color wheel in a rear projection LCD, either.

> Can you
>say three distinct display chips? Keep trying.

There are three display panels in a rear projection LCD. Again, that fact
is not relevant to my question.


>Say hello to the experts at the pizza parlor for me.

I don't know any experts at a pizza parlor. If you are getting off on the
fact that I noted that the HD-ILA is in use in a public place, then you have
a real problem with logic.

Alan

[Alan]

In article > "Deke" <no > writes:
>
>"Alan" > wrote in message

>> Nonsense. RPTV is dismal compared to the other choices. You cannot get around
>> the problems of the screen.
>
>And of course you dont elaborate on what those problems are, do you? I
>suppose eyeglasses, or sunglasses inherently destroy your vision also?

The screen diffuses the light. The glasses slightly refract the light.

If you hold the screen up in front of you, you cannot see through it.


>> I have seen them in several places. For example, there is one in Windy City
>> Pizza in San Mateo.
>
>A pizza parlor? And thats what youre basing your argument on?
>BWAHAHAHAHA!!

Did you have a problem with the phrase "in several places"?

Hint: The pizza place was one that was not being displayed for sale.
I have seen several being displayed for sale.

The location of the samples I have seen is not relevant to the fact
that you cannot answer my comments about them.

The ones being displayed for sale looked pretty dismal compared to
direct view screens.


>> If you were close enough to see the "screen door effect", you were too
>close.
>>
>> If you move a bit farther back, the spatial reconstruction filtering of
>your
>> visual system gives a better (sharper) image in the display with dark
>space
>> between the pixels.
>
>
>And that means the JVC HD-ILA has a better, sharper picture, because theres
>no black spaces around the pixels as there is in plasma, or DLP, or LCD.
>Get it?

No, in fact, that means the image is less sharp. Look up how digital samples
are fed to reconstruction filters. Look up the spectral response of pulse input
vs sample and hold square samples.

>Its why "in-line" pictures were a huge improvement over the original three
>dot matrix of the first color picture tubes. Not as much "blank" space,
>more picture=sharper, brighter picture with more contrast.

No, in line pictures were an improvement because you didn't have to compensate
for the earth's magnetic field when the set was installed. Varying magnetic fields
caused slight VERTICAL deflection of the colors, which did not cause color purity
problems in the in-line tubes.


>So it stands to reason that if a picture looks good from a foot away, and
>another picture doesnt look nearly as good, that means the better looking
>picture will look better even farther away.
>
>
>>
>> And, you still don't understand the heat issue. The light that is sent
>to
>> the screen has energy - that light energy is either sent to the screen or
>converted
>> to heat in the imager. It cannot be filtered out in advance, because it
>is the
>> visible light that forms the image.
>>
>>
>> Alan
>
>Please dont tell me what I understand or dont understand.
>With 58 years under my belt, some of which were spent as an electronics tech
>both in the military and in private practice, I think I have a better grasp
>of the technology of creating a TV picture than you do, even with your vast
>knowledge of a tv in a pizza parlor.

Please tell me where you have viewed HD-ILA sets. List all places,
and provide documentation for why your experience is more valid than
mine.

>And you do realized that in the electromagnetic spectrum,
>visible light, and infrared (heat) are at different frequencies?

Apparently as an electronics tech, you lack the understanding of the
physics of energy to explain to you that that visible light also
carries energy, and when it is absorbed, the object is heated.

The myth that infrared is heat and visible light is not heat, is just
a myth based on not understanding.

>And that the heat is easily removed, especially after being split by a prism
>and filtered, not to mention forced air cooling way before it reaches the
>reflective silicon chips. There are three of them, BTW.
>Your really dont know much about how TVs work, of whatever type, do you?

Actually, I know a lot about them, apparently more than you do, from your
claims.

The visible light is the source of the heat. What cools the display chip?
What temperature does it operate at?


Alan

[Matthew L. Martin]

Alan wrote:

>
> The visible light is the source of the heat. What cools the display chip?
> What temperature does it operate at?
>

Please to be reading the works of Isaac Newton. He figured this one out
nearly 500 years ago.

Matthew

--
You can bet that a week after Daguerre took the first photograph,
vendors were selling feelthy pictures on the streets of Paris.

Thomas A. Horsley on alt.tv.tech.hdtv

[Alan]

In article > "Matthew L. Martin" > writes:
>Alan wrote:
>
>>
>> The visible light is the source of the heat. What cools the display chip?
>> What temperature does it operate at?
>>
>
>Please to be reading the works of Isaac Newton. He figured this one out
>nearly 500 years ago.


And that would be conduction, convection, or radiation?

Once we squirt about 50 watts of light at each chip, and reflect approximately
half of it away, we have 25 watts to get rid of.

We could blow lots of air across it, and hope that works.

We could put a heat sink behind it, and hope that the thermal conductivity is
great enough to dump that heat with the display material on the front being kept
sufficiently cool.

We could just pray that the chip will radiate enough heat to its environment
that it will reach a sufficiently cool stable temperature. It would have to get
unreasonably hot for black body radiation to dump 25 watts from a rather small
surface area (if that is what you were referring to by your comment about Newton,
try again).

We could do a combination of these.

The surface temperature will vary, but it will have a normal operating range.
What is that range? Nobody seems willing to say. Probably nobody here knows.


Alan

[socal]

RobH wrote:
>
> http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/files/lns4096_final.pdf

I agree, though I'm going for the 32" (lns3251). In fact, I was just set
to order the 32" Sony Bravia but wanted to look at one one last time
before ordering online. When I walked into the store, the Samsung was
next to the Bravia. It's funny you mentioned plasma, because I asked the
rep if the Samsung was plasma.....I thought it was. I've seen Samsung
lcds at my gym, and I thought they were weak....especially when viewing
at an angle....but they've really come along.

P.S. has anyone ordered a tv from Amazon?