Laser TV's are on the way!!!

[SUBMAN1]

I still run a tube based TV at home. I'm waiting on this tech before I upgrade since I hate both LCD and Plasma (ugly dithering in both since they have very hard times producing decent color).

-S

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/01/mitsu-laser-img_0748.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/01/mitsu-laser-img_0745.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/01/mitsu-laseru-img_0785.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/01/mitsu-laseru-img_0770.jpg

[STEED]

Population reduction is on it's way. :yep:

ZAP, your history. :ping:

[SUBMAN1]

Hardly. Its zap, we have you captivated with neat colors while we pass more PC laws! That is the danger here! :D

-S

PS. Laser TV's actually do have good color. They can produce an estimated 70% of the color that your human eye can see. LCD's do about 30% to 35% only.

[Sailor Steve]

That's pretty funny, SUBMAN1. A paper here recently carried an article about SuperHD-DVDs being used in movie theaters, and he noted that in large scenes of "amber waves of grain" there was still a fair amount of digitization. His quote: "SuperDVDs claim to capture millions of colors. Only film still captures ALL the colors; and that's billions."

I'll be curious to see where all this new tech ends up.

[SUBMAN1]

That's pretty funny, SUBMAN1. A paper here recently carried an article about SuperHD-DVDs being used in movie theaters, and he noted that in large scenes of "amber waves of grain" there was still a fair amount of digitization. His quote: "SuperDVDs claim to capture millions of colors. Only film still captures ALL the colors; and that's billions."

I'll be curious to see where all this new tech ends up.Actually you are right. It was recorded on film so only film will show off its detail to the best degree. Any change in default format always results in a quality loss for any form of media.

Besides, you have compression. A RAW uncompressed DVD can easily take up 150 GB of data, which is why MPEG-2 is used to bring it down to 4.37 GB to 7.8 GB. WIth compression comes quality loss. MPEG-2 is not bad though, and is better than MPEG-4 for high action scenes - it has more I frames. MPEG-4 trades more P frames for I frames, and this results in higher compression, but is best used for static frames since P frames only record the change from the default I frame. Notice if an I frame has an error, P frames will continue to propogate that error until the next I frame too.

I'm way off topic now. :)

-S

[Sailor Steve]

I'm way off topic now. :)
But fascinating nonetheless. I just learned something new. Thanks!:sunny:

[SUBMAN1]

I'm way off topic now. :) But fascinating nonetheless. I just learned something new. Thanks!:sunny:np! Don't even get me started on B frames though!

-S