Sony to Stop Producing Smaller CRTs 564
NerveGas writes "Sony is apparantly going to stop producing 17- and 19-inch CRTs, in favor of LCDs. It seems a bit soon to drop CRTs completely, seeing as how LCDs still have less than 30% of the market share. Maybe since their patent on Trinitron screens expired, they're not able to command ridiculous margins any more." Smaller CRTs? I've got a couple 19" Sony monitors here, and I've always considered them to be a good size.
Re:Dropping CRTs may make sense (kinda) (Score:3, Informative)
where did you hear this one?!! Sony makes bottom of the barrel audio equipment, both at home garbage and mobile trash. It is sold to the lowest common denominator who is more interested in the 300 watt rating than anything else.
I'm not sure about _all_ CRTs (Score:4, Informative)
Reservation Price (Score:5, Informative)
A persons reservation price, is the max $ they are willing to spend on an item. Lets say there are 5 (A, B, C, D, E) people in our world interesting in buying a shinny new FOO.
Bar INC. the maker of FOO does market research before releasing FOO and finds that some people (A and B) would pay $10 for foo, C thinks it is only worth $8 and D, E wouldn't buy it unless it were $5 or less.
So to make maximum profit, Bar INC. first prices FOO at $10 for a year, A and B pick up one each. Then they drop it to $8, C picks one, then after 18 more months, they drop it to $5 and D and E get there FOO's. Total revenue is 38$ for Bar INC. If they had just marketed at some average of like ~$8 they would have only made $24 because D and E would never purchase.
It is safe to assume that nearly all hardware companies practice this.
Re:the las vegas effect (Score:5, Informative)
There are plenty of LCD monitors with a total response time under 35 ms now, which is enough for 30 crisp, fully-contrasted frames per second. Quake 3 and other fast high-contrast games might lose some crispness, but the images are still clear and bright enough for the average joe. (Maybe even better-looking, since there's just the slightest hint of motion blur
Of course some very cheap LCDs have serious issues with ghosting, but you shouldn't have any problems as long as you try before you buy.
One thing to be careful with piuxel response times (Score:5, Informative)
My 25ms lcd's are FULL cycle. 25ms to clear and replace a pixel with a new colour.
Some manufacturers are advertising pixel response times based upon just the time from already cleared to fill, and as such report their times twice as good as they actually are. So be careful and definitely TRY BEFORE YOU BUY with LCD's. Also remember ot check for dead pixels.
Small monitors are too cheap (Score:2, Informative)
Re:LCDs Still Suck. (Score:3, Informative)
Good points. I know that while I am looking at my flat panel I often tilt it away from me just to change the angle. I also like to turn the monitor away from me just so I can see the colors washed out.
The bottom line is that LCD monitors don't have the field of vision that CRTs have. But once I set up my monitor I only view it from one angle.
My dell 20" Flat panel that runs at 1600x1200 has no problem with showing black.
And yes, you have to make sure that you are comfortable with the native resolution before you purchase it. But the one nice thing microsoft has done is that most directx games nowadays can run at the desktop's resolution rather than a set 1024x768 or 800x600. So with the games I have purchased the past year or so I am running them all at 1600x1200.
As for the price issue, they are a little more expensive than the CRT counterparts if you compare them to high quality CRTs. I have yet to see a CRT show lines as straight as my LCD at 1600x1200. And I only paid $750 for mine, brand new.
The one major benefit that LCDs have over CRTs is the ergonomic issue (and not just moving them
So yes, they have a few drawbacks, but the benefits far outweigh the few disadvantages.
Re:Back in the old days... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-10/h1.html [sony.net]
Re:pros and cons of LCDs (Score:3, Informative)
I agree, the 22" and even more so with the 23" Apple Displays are beautiful displays. But not for what Apple is trying to sell them for, and definitely not for the price. I am the sys admin for an advertising agency in Little Rock, Arkansas - I buy all 21" Sonys for my artists and they absolutely love them. I'd get them the 24" if my budget were twice as big
And actually I've been under the impression that Sony made Apple's displays all along - back to the days of the beige 21" Apple Studio Display. Without doing actual research I stumbled onto this Sony display [sonystyle.com] which happens to be a 23" LCD with the exact same specs as Apple's HD Cinema Display [apple.com] I pretty much knew they were the same thing. Guess what, Sony's is $500 cheaper. Only difference is the Apple Digital Connector.
When the Trinitron is replaced I'll still be buying from Sony. They just make good shit.
Re:Lines (Score:2, Informative)
It is called Apature Grill. It is a series of vertical fins just inside which make the pixels (spacing and all that). But because they have no horizontal support, they need it. so there are small supports at 1/3 and 2/3 down the screen (use a white background and you can see it).
The other technology, which is more expensive to manufacture, is Invar Shadow Mask. This is like a fine mesh that has holes for each pixel. The benefit is that it tends to be a sharper image, doesn't have the lines, and looks pretty much great. Cons are it costs more, and most companies went the AG as soon as they could.
I hate the AG monitors, so when I bought my 19" CRT (flat screen), I got a Viewsonic G90f. 19" shadow mask. It cost me $550CDN about 1.5 years ago. I have not regretted going to it at all.
I can go to very high res with no problems, it never ghosts, no bloody lines, and viewsonic went all-out with it. One of the possible drawbacks to shadow mask is that it can be slightly dimmer (due to less light making it through [think a fine mesh to cover your windows vs thin slat blinds), but viewsonic boosted the brightness a LOT. I keep it at ~50% and it is very bright.
LCD problems (Score:2, Informative)
-There's no chance of a dead pixel wiggling across the virtual screen when I scroll my 1600x1200 virtual desktop on a 1152x864 actual screen.
-No viewing angle problems. Period.
-All the colours are attractive. Have they finally made LCDs that do adequate red and brown?
-No scaling problems. I need 640x480. I want 1152x864. If my screen is tied to 1280x1024, I'd have either a viewing window the size of a postage stamp or terrible scale-up.
Fortunately, I already have a 19" tube. Only way I'm getting a bigger one is if someone chains one of those dirt-cheap 10-year-old 20" Sun or HP fixed-frequency monitors to the back of a Voodoo III.
Re:Does this mean... cheap Trinitrons? (Score:3, Informative)
Another plus for trinitron, appart from the !sharp! picture, is it's colour. Very important if you work in print, dtp, video, 3d or anywhere else where colour is important.
Re:Dropping CRTs may make sense (kinda) (Score:3, Informative)
I can't imagine where anyone would get this idea. Sony consistently beats the crap out of every other manufacturer.
While everyone else had 3 second shock-protection, and had to swap batteries every 2-4 hours, I had a Sony CD Discman that had 40 second memory, and lasted about 40 hours on two AA batteries, had S/PDIF output, and a metal shell (not plastic).
Their headphones have great frequence ranges, where most others cut of the high or low-end. And Sony headphones are always louder than others (less resistance) because they don't use cheap speakers that can't handle the power.
Their amplifiers are powerful, and just about all their equipment produces less noise than anything but professional equipment (which costs several times more).
Their equipment is quite durable as well, and lasts for years even under my heavy use.
I can't imagine how anyone else could have such different experiences than mine.
Re:the las vegas effect (Score:3, Informative)
Pixel color and intensity on an LCD doesn't change until it is told to. If every single frame tells the pixel to be teal, then it will never stop being teal, at all. It will not go teal/black/teal/black, like a CRT.
Re:the las vegas effect (Score:3, Informative)
Samsung 50" HDTV w/ no risk of burn-in...... (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, and did I mention it's only 17.5" deep and weighs all of 88lbs? That's just a smidgen heavier than my 21" NEC AccuSync 120 [tigerdirect.com] at work, and almost 3" shallower!
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing (Score:3, Informative)
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You're superficially quoting something that admittedly is often quoted, but this is a very complex subject, and your summary of it is so simplistic as to be wrong.
For one thing, the "critical flicker fusion rate" is not simply a universal "60 frames per second". It depends on:
That's part of why movie theaters get away with a mere 48fps (24 unique frames, but each is double shuttered). They turn the ambient lights down to almost zero, and that helps a lot.
You're also mildly confused about tv, which in the US does use 30 unique frames per second, but by using interlace, increases that up to more reasonable 60fps...however most people will definitely see flicker on US tv at some times in some conditions. Sophisticated broadcasters usually try to minimize the issues on their end, but that's not always enough.
Europe of course has 25 unique frames, interlaced up to 50 total frames per second (to match the frequency of their wall current, just as 60 Hertz matches US wall current frequency), and TV's in Europe are often perceived to flicker, as opposed to rarely.
It also depends on which aspect of perception under discussion; cartoons sometimes use as few as 4 unique frames per second (each displayed repeatedly to end up with a total of 48 or 60 or whatever fps), because that's adequate for a perception of motion. But it's jerky motion.
And now we have come to the heart of the issue of why it can be desirable to have even higher rates than 60 to 80fps. We are strobing objects in continuous motion, and the faster they move, the more the strobed snapshot of them is subject to motion blur (potentially...never mind whether this happens e.g. Quake in particular).
In real life, objects being viewed are in a continuous domain, and our perceptual system does something similar to discrete sampling. That will never mathematically be identical to discrete sampling of a discrete sequence at another rate; there's always issues of aliasing. This is a huge issue for digital signal processing in every domain, whether audio, visual, or other.
At any rate, in theory, certain very rapidly moving objects should be perceived more crisply at (say) 150 fps than at 80fps, even though that's way over that critical flicker fusion rate --- there are more issues involved than just that.