The original version of this page can be found at : http://forum.sfreader.com/default.aspx?f=19&m=4511
| Posted By : Dragon Angel - 1/13/2006 7:31 PM | I'm an expert in liquid crystal physics, I guess, since that's what I earned my PhD in. I'm also a pseudo expert in other fields of physics, although I've been known to make mistakes.
If you want to discuss relativity and tell me it's wrong, that's fine, but I won't get involved.
read free fiction and poetry at http://www.geocities.com/davidolson22/index.html |
| Posted By : Frank - 1/15/2006 1:46 PM | | Aha! An actual scientist! And in liquid crystal physics, no less. Perhaps you can tell us why liquid crystal displays look so poor compared to plasma screens? |
| Posted By : Dragon Angel - 1/15/2006 5:16 PM | A better question would be, why are they phasing out plasma screens anyway?
Liquid crystals have a rather large response time to an electric field because the field is causing the entire structure of the L.C. to change. This makes it so the image is rather slow. Also the way they design them is such that you have to look straight on to have a good picture. If you look at an angle, the image goes away, although they are using optical tricks to help with that now-a-days.
I don't know if that answers your question well enough...
read free fiction and poetry at http://www.geocities.com/davidolson22/index.html |
| Posted By : Frank - 1/16/2006 9:58 AM | | But even when you look straight on at an LCD image there is still a noticable difference in quality compared to plasma. Resolution, for example, seems inferior to me, even with small LCD screens and computer monitors. A plasma picture looks smooth and flowing while LCD always looks pixilated. I'm disappointed that plasmas are being phased out by LCDs. I would gladly pay the MSRP of $6999.99 for Sony's 52 inch plasma after seeing it in action several times (if I had the money, that is) but I don't think I would ever pay a dime of my hard-earned money for an LCD of any size. I was even mad at my wife when she traded our cathode ray PC monitor for her dad's LCD of the same size for free because I can't stand the LCD's picture. If I can't have a good large plasma screen then I'd rather buy a 32 inch or 35 inch cathode ray flat screen. |
| Posted By : Dragon Angel - 1/17/2006 7:10 PM | Nematic liquid crystals, which is what I believe they use, have a characteristic length. It's practically impossible to create pixels smaller than that length. I believe that is what causes the pixelation you are seeing.
Here's an article about some companies phasing out plasma TV's (near the bottom). I'm not sure what Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Displays are.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117839,00.asp
Another on quality of SED displays:
http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/0/38246875B3B8483DCC256F11007950DB?OpenDocument
"Apart from the high cost and power usage the displays aren't meant to last more than 10 years, and if you tip them on their side the screen just won't work. For the manufacturer there are headaches in transporting them on top of a limited market for them."
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Dec/gee20041228028440.htm
Anyway, it sounds like SEDs will be pretty cool.
read free fiction and poetry at http://www.geocities.com/davidolson22/index.html |
|