Posts Tagged ‘HDTVs’

The Hunt For the Perfect Screen [Screens]

As I stood in the corner of a small, cluttered optics lab at MIT, the professor flipped a switch. The room filled with an electrical buzz, and suddenly a holographic video popped out at my face.

The 3-D image was of a human rib cage, and it rotated in midair. And the holographic rib cage rattled me.

It was my first experience with a Display Of The Future, and it set me on a mission. In the subsequent years, I've been hunting down display prototypes, talking with experts, and visiting labs. In short, I've been on a quest for the perfect display.

Now You See It

Even though holographic video blew me away when I first saw it, I quickly composed myself. It's simply not the sort of thing that will be commercially available any time soon.

I talked to Gregg Favalora, 3-D expert and founder of Actuality Systems, about the commercial viability of high-resolution 3-D video. His company broke resolution records with its display-a 100-million-voxel (3-D pixel) device that made images for radiologists and engineers hunting for oil reserves. The details of these 3-D images look eerily realistic, but Actuality had a heck of a time finding the right market for it.

In the end, the company only sold 30 systems at $200,000 each and it has now ceased engineering operations. And that MIT holographic video system I saw in a few years ago is still trapped in the lab. The lesson: no matter how extraordinary your technology, it's impractical for the people unless you can efficiently manufacture it in large numbers.

I See Practicality

At the opposite end of the price spectrum is LCD. It's cheap as dirt thanks to the billions of dollars of factories built over the past two decades. I wanted to get a look at the way LCDs are made and try to find clues for how a more interesting or useful display-like a reflective e-reader or an OLED screen-could scale up and become cheap.

So I took a trip down to Applied Materials in Santa Clara, California, a company that supplies 90 percent of the LCD industry with manufacturing equipment. What I saw was impressive: the newest fabs are built around sheets of glass—backplanes of LCDs—that are the size of a garage door. They're only as thick as six sheets of paper, and each one can yield eight large screen TVs.

The machines that deposit electronics on the glass are behemoths-taller than I can reach and with an area slightly larger than a garage door. In a fab, six of these machines are arrange circularly, and from above they look like a giant mechanized flower. The sheets of glass slide in like a floppy disk into a drive, and come out coated with thin film transistors.

The bigger the glass, the more displays can be pumped out of a factory, and the cheaper all sizes of LCD displays become. According to Sid Rosenblatt, the CFO of Universal Display Corporation, a big fab can make six 50-inch LCDs every three to four minutes. At that volume, how can anything else compete with LCD?

Fitting In


Well, instead of beating them, startup Pixel Qi decided to join them. The company's screens are all LCD—built on the same lines and with the same materials as any other liquid crystal display—but with an additional mode in which the power-hungry backlight is off, and the display reflects ambient light.

I've seen Pixel Qi's displays and visited with Mary Lou Jepsen, the startup's founder and the former CTO of the One Laptop Per Child project. Jepsen spends most of her time in Taipei, the capital of Displayland, but on a sunny day last fall, I caught her at her houseboat in Sausalito. It was the perfect time and place to try out an LCD that is most impressive in bright light.

In its reflective mode, the display is black and white, similar to a Kindle or Sony Reader except it's faster-capable of video, albeit in monochrome. The first batch of Pixel Qi screens is scheduled to come off the line this month. Jepsen says more designs that further reduce power consumption are on the way. In one, she explains that the screen, when not needing to refresh, should be able to shut down the central processing unit(and wake it up within milliseconds when it's in use).

As for a color reflective mode, Jepsen says it could be possible in a couple of years. The concept, which involves a particular arrangement of liquid crystals, is based on her PhD thesis, but it's admittedly a more complex design than the first Pixel Qi screens. Her first priority, she says, is making sure that Pixel Qi can ship its first products quickly and successfully.

Bright and Beautiful

While Pixel Qi might be making cheap displays that are easy on the eyes and energy efficient, they can't compare to the beauty and simplicity of OLED screens, in which each pixel emits its own light. The whites are whiter, the blacks are blacker, and the overall image is just gorgeous.

Even better, the manufacturing process is as simple as it gets. It's layer of organic material that can be printed between two layers of electrodes. This means that OLED displays have the potential to fold, roll, and be built over large areas.

Concepts I've seen: a paper-thin, flexible display slammed by a hammer without breaking, a display that's see-through when the power's off, and large area OLED coating that act as a window, a wall, or a display, depending on its mode.

In terms of touch, I'm keeping an eye on a new type of technology that's being integrated into the electronic foundation of OLED displays and LCDs too. It's called in-cell technology, and there are a number of variants, but one type incorporates photodetectors into the pixels of a screen. It's ideal for OLED displays, because it can be added without adding thickness, allowing them to maintain their sleek good looks.

If there were ever a perfect display, OLED is it.

The Holdup

In a conversation with Vladimir Bulovic, a professor at MIT (and star of the famous HYPERLINK "http://techtv.mit.edu/genres/19-engineering/videos/3175-vladimir-bulovic-on-oled-displays" light-emitting pickle video) we waxed poetic on the possibilities of OLEDs. Bulovic believes that it's only a matter of time before OLEDs take their rightful place at the head of the display industry. The reason we have to wait is simply bad timing. "If back in the 1970s, we had OLEDs, no one would even know what an LCD is today," he said.

The widely understood problem with OLED displays, however, is that the technology doesn't exist to mass manufacture them on large sheets of glass like those I saw at Applied Material. Therefore, their beauty is relegated to smaller screens like cell phone displays, Sony's 11-inch (expensive) TV, and concept demos.

Engineers are working on the problem, of course. Bulovic told me about a former student of his, named Conor Madigan, who has an OLED-printing startup in Menlo Park called Kateeva. I got a hold of Madigan who said his company, which uses a hybrid approach to printing large-scale OLED display, is well funded (even in these difficult economic times) and the display industry is really starting to push large-scale OLED technology.

While it's true that big display makers are promising big OLED screens in the next couple of years, I'm not holding my breath. Even when the technology for printing large-scale OLED displays arrives, it will still take significant investments to scale up manufacturing. It's difficult for companies to justify investing too much money in OLED displays while LCD sales are still doing well and continue to get cheaper. Besides, these large-screen OLEDs will still be made on glass, just like LCD, which keeps things rigid, fragile, and heavy.

Past Glass

In order to have a light, flexible, rugged OLED display, it's obvious that display makers must go with plastic instead of glass. Plastic Logic, is promising the world's first plastic-backed screens with printed organic transistors, by early next year.

I've handled a proto-version of Que, Plastic Logic's e-reader, at the company's Mountain View headquarters and was impressed by the form factor. While it's still rigid, it's light as a thin stack of papers. And because it's made of plastic, it's robust. I felt like flinging it across the boardroom where I sat with the head of marketing and a public relations handler. I didn't.

Here's the bad news for Plastic Logic: it all comes back to scalability. At the recent Printed Electronics conference in San Jose, I had lunchtime conversations with people who just shake their head at Plastic Logic's challenges. A number of them expressed skepticism that the manufacturing process could scale.

Printed organic transistors currently can't compete in speed with amorphous silicon transistors used in LCDs and OLED displays. And the company's printing technology is done in a single fab in Dresden, which could make it difficult to produce the e-reader in large volume. In other words, it won't be cheap or widespread, at least in the near future.

Roll With It


However, the folks at HP Labs think they have a scalable way to make plastic-backed displays with fast silicon transistors. On a recent tour of HP Labs I saw the proof: sheets of plastic, tens of meters long, are rolled onto tubes and are loaded and locked into a system that imprints silicon transistors onto the material.

Carl Taussig, the director of HP's information surfaces lab, walked me through the process of the so-called Self Aligned Imprint Lithography. Plastic, with a shiny coating, spins on a series of cylinders, where it is exposed to chemicals, ultra-violet light, etching solutions, and ionized gasses. The roll-to-roll setups are compact, and they don't require clean-room level purity that other display processes do.

Taussig, who is also responsible for inventing the DVD-RW, showed me prototypes, built with HP's silicon-on-plastic transistors. One of these plastic backplanes controlled an E Ink display. Some of the pixels that were supposed to be black appeared gray, but these prototypes help the researchers find the problems in the roll-to-roll process. If they see a blown-out pixel, they retrace their steps to find where in the process the problem arose. 



In another demonstration, I saw a new type of reflective display developed at HP that was about the size of a smart phone screen. It has color and video and is one of the best-looking reflective screen I've seen. Technical details were sparse (they will come out early next year), but Taussig told me that part of the trick is to make a pixel out of three layers of color dyes that take incoming white light and reflect specific colors of it back at you, something like the way that butterfly wings reflect light.

Within Two Years

While Taussig doesn't think roll-to-roll will replace LCD processes anytime soon, he hopes it can help plastic become the foundation for reflective displays as well as emissive displays like those made of OLEDs. HP has licensed its roll-to-roll technology to PowerFilm, a thin film solar manufacturer. And recently, PowerFilm's subsidiary Phicot has started to commercially developing the process for electronics. The first products will be displays for soldiers that may be integrated into clothing or wrap around their arms.

Combining HP's roll-to-roll manufacturing with OLEDs and a reflective reading technology is the closest thing to the perfect display that I've seen. So I ask Taussig how long it's going to take to make the process reliable. He's optimistic that Phicot can iron out the problems soon. "To be successful we need to roll this out within two years," he says, since the first plastic displays will hit the market in 2010.

In talking with Taussig, it's clear to me that even though he's a researcher, he's focused on making plastic displays practical. He knows the only way to do that is with solid, cost-effective manufacturing. Once the manufacturing problems are solved, he says, plastic displays become inevitable. "My grandkids will never believe that we made displays with glass," he says. "Everything will be on plastic."

I can't wait. The perfect screen will be lightweight, energy-efficient, and able to take various forms—flexible, transparent, and with touch or some other form of gesture recognition. I want colors so vibrant that images look real enough to grab. Still, I want to read on it without feeling like I'm staring at a flashlight. And it's got to be cheap.

So far, the displays I've seen come close. And while nothing yet gets it all right, there are some up-and-coming technologies-and, crucially, emerging manufacturing processes-that give me confidence that the perfect display is on the way.

Kate Greene spends most of her day staring at the screens of her MacBook Pro and iPhone. She became a journalist by way of physics, where she worked in a basement lab with lasers and a lot of liquid nitrogen. Currently, she writes for publications like The Economist and Technology Review and goes on display hunts for Gizmodo. She can be found on the Internet at kategreene.net and on twitter




, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments


Panasonic’s Largest Plasma Plant Complete: More 150-Inch and 3D Sets To Come [HDTVs]

Panasonic's largest and third plasma plant, in Amagasaki, was just completed. The factory will be capable of churning out more of those 150-inch sets (like Dorothy), or nine 50-inchers out of the same glass.

The new factory will also host a process to reduce afterglow and improve 3D performance. It'll eventually output 1 million smaller sets a month. [JapanToday]




, , , , ,

No Comments


Q-TV2 Speakers Tuck Stereo Speakers, Subwoofer Behind Your Flat Panel TV [Speakers]

The sound quality could be dubious, but the design is clever: By squishing the sub and speakers down to a few inches in width, Q Acoustics has managed to hide a complete speaker system behind your flat panel TV.

The rig works with TVs that range between 30- and 42-inches, attaches to an existing frame or can even just chill with your TV on a stand. Available in Europe only for now, it costs a somewhat lofty $500.

My only question is one related to vibration. By placing the subwoofer directly behind the TV and against the wall/frame that supports it, will there be any visible vibration on the screen as you watch Kirk and company blast Nero into subspace? I ask because a similar thing happens to my rearview mirror when I blast my pop music at high decibels in the coche. [Q Acoustic via Red Ferret via DVICE]




, , , , ,

No Comments


In the Pantheon of Stupid Criminals, HDTV Shoplifter Reigns Supreme [Crime]

December! The season of love, family, and most of all, clumsy, desperate larceny. Exhibit 27: This guy, who tries to sneak an entire HDTV out of a big-box store in broad daylight. What was the plan here, exactly? [Break]




, , , , , , ,

No Comments


TV Makers, Please Stop Putting Bullshit in Your TVs [HDTVs]

I love TV technology, but wince when I see an $11K Japan-only Toshiba stuffed with a 3TB DVR. And adding internet widgets, like Samsung's, is even worse. I hate this trend—TVs just need great picture and lower cost.

TV makers may think we want these things, and I think they're right we want content on our sets, but I don't want it from them. I'd believe that such extras might help sales in a world where ever ad says their set is the prettiest in picture. I believe that they believe that extras like this help sales. But I don't think a smart TV buyer would want these extras, or use them very often.

Several months ago, I reviewed the pinnacle of junk extra content in a Samsung LCD TV, which I didn't love but earned much critical acclaim. The 7000 and 8000 series in this line up had identical specs to the 6000, more or less, but for a few hundred dollars more, you could get WIDGET-FIED. There was a menu, hidden, that when you found it had an astounding amount of content. Insane, weirdo content. Receipes for dinner, lunch, desert annotated, step by step. Over 15 creepy children's songs, by a big yellow and short blue cartoon character. Bowling and a Galaga type game. Yahoo Widgets: An open API system that allows for weather, tweeting and flickr photos. Only 8 had been developed and so the openness was a joke. So was the performance. It was heartbreakingly slow to load, and therefore useless. Like all the other extras, they were poorly implemented, added cost to the set, and were instantly outdated. Here's the review, or just watch this ridiculous video:

I think some basic media playback in a TV is fine. I'll take that. Though so many Blu-ray players and set-top boxes are doing the same thing, it's almost certain to be redundant. And it's better to keep all that outside the TV itself, anyway. If you have to add processors and Ethernet connections to a TV to run shitty software and content, I'd rather they didn't.

Because here's the thing: People keep TVs for a long time, and building TVs is serious business. They should focus on the set itself. And they can't beat the content in my Xbox, and even if they did for a second, an Xbox is replaceable rather easily, compared to a HDTV set that costs thousands of dollars. I plan to get one TV and have it last over several generations of Xboxes.

TV makers, please stick to making the pixels more pretty. We'll get our content from who we want, the way we want to.




, , , , ,

No Comments


Which One of These 10 Best HDTVs Would Make The Best Gift? [Question Of The Day]

Using HD Guru's list of the 10 best HDTVs you can buy as a guide, which one of the following sets would be top on your holiday wishlist?

If you have a suggestion of your own, make sure to let us know in the comments.

Check out HD Guru for details and specs on each unit. [HD Guru Image via spunkinator]




, , , , , ,

No Comments


Giz Explains: The Ultimate HDTV Cheat Sheet and Buying Guides [Giz Explains]

It's truly the best time of year to buy an HDTV, and well, here's every confusing TV term you might encounter, everything you need, explained in one place.

Resolution aka 720p vs. 1080i vs. 1080p
Resolution is pretty simple—it's the number of individual dots (pixels) that make up a display, arranged in a grid. However, when it comes to TVs, we tend talk about it in a slightly weird way, as lines of resolution (think of a FourSquare board), and we tend to do it in shorthand. So, for instance, what's considered "standard definition" is a resolution of 640 x 480, which refers to 640 vertical lines, and 480 horizontal lines. A 720p TV has 720 horizontal lines of resolution, and most typically, 1280 vertical ones. A 1080i or 1080p TV is 1920 x 1080. And the whole 1080i vs. 1080p thing—i stands for interlaced, where only every other line of resolution is displayed, while p is for progressive scan, where the whole picture's displayed at once. Really, since even the cheapest sets are progressive now, you don't have to worry about it.

An important thing to consider, however, is the Lechner Distance, or the distance at which your eye can actually process all of the detail in a 1080i/p resolution image. While you should consult the chart, basically, if you're sitting further back than 7 feet from a 52-inch TV, your eyeballs can't actually resolve the difference between 720p and 1080p, so you might as well save the cash.

Motion Resolution
A somewhat trickier spec that some TV experts swear by, it refers to how well a set's resolution holds up when stuff's actually moving on the screen, like a baseball player running down a field. Plasmas tend to have better native motion resolution than LCD, but LCD has been fixing this problem. (See "hertz," below.)

Viewing Angle
Basically, it's how far to each side of the TV you can be and still see the picture, measured in an angle that is, naturally, less than 180º. Again, traditionally this was more of an LCD problem than a plasma one, but all TV technologies have had some issues in the past, and the worst offenders used to be DLP and other microdisplays.

To see viewing angle at work, start where the picture on a TV looks best, and move to one side—now note where the picture starts looking weird, with the colors changing, washing out and getting hard to see. Nicer sets reach nearly 180º, so plenty of people can take part in the HD glory.

Hertz, or What 120Hz and 240Hz Mean
Hertz is basically just the number of times the image onscreen refreshes a second. Because of broadcast standards, TVs in the US need to be 60Hz, meaning they refresh the image onscreen 60 times a second. (In Europe, the standard is 50Hz.) Video sources are generally 30 or 60 frames per second, because of this, and a regular video camera shoots at 60fps a second. So typically, 60Hz sets are the norm.

Lately, though you have 120Hz, and even 240Hz sets, all of them LCDs. They do this to increase motion resolution—see above. A 120Hz TV refreshes 120 times a second, and it comes up with those extra frames by making them up—either duping the frames that are there and putting black spaces in between, or by splicing in intermediary frames that are basically realtime morphs of the two frames they come between. Stuff looks really smooth—sometimes too smooth, true—but the point's to fight LCD's motion blur disadvantage against plasma.

240Hz is another ball of sticky still, promising less motion blur, but with a tradeoff. but there are two different ways to achieve it. One way's kind of cheating, in that it's a 120Hz that uses a flashing backlight to simulate 240 frames a second. The other, more "legit" 240Hz is genuinely faster, with images staying up on the screen for just 4ms before moving to the next. There's no real way to tell which kind of 240Hz a TV uses (though a "scanning backlight" is a tip off it's not the "real" 240Hz). There is a law of diminishing returns in reducing motion blur as you climb past 240Hz, but for some serious AV nerds, like Home Entertainment's Geoff Morrison, it does make LCD TVs more watchable.

Plasma TV brands sometimes boast "600Hz," but that's mostly to show off to LCD shoppers that these kinds of motion-blur refresh problems are really specific to LCD. It's not so much a spec as a declaration of the tech's superiority in this department.

To make things just a tad weirder for you, films have been shot since ancient times at 24 frames per second, so many TVs have a 24P mode, meaning the screen refreshes 24 frames per second, or in multiples thereof. (Any mathmagician can tell you that both 120 and 240 are divisible by 24.)

Plasma
The basic way plasmas work is that there's a party of noble gases trapped between two glass panels that are zapped and light up all pretty. More practically, what plasmas offer over LCDs is superior color (often), better motion (typically) and deeper blacks (always and forever, with a couple of exceptions). The tradeoff is that they're more power hungry, and generally heavier.

The life-or-death questions people have about plasmas are almost mythical now: Burn-in, where an image is permanently etched into the panel after being left up on screen too long isn't really problem anymore (unless you're sadistic to your TV). The "Denver problem," where high altitudes affect sets, is less of an issue, but it exists: If you live at 6,000 feet or higher, you should read this summary by our friend David Katzmaier at CNet. Panel half-life is a very long time, now, about the same as LCD's backlight (which, of course, could be replaced, but we're talking like 10 year out). When it comes to the cheapest TVs, 720p plasmas are hands-down the safest bet for best picture quality.

LCD
The people's HDTV technology, LCD, stands for liquid crystal display. The liquid crystal part is a gel that sits in front of a backlight, which is divided up into pixels. There are two main kinds of backlights used, CCFL (pictured, via Home Theater Mag) which are like the lights in your high school cafeteria), and LED, which we talk a bit more about below. There are two major kinds of LCD displays. There's the traditional twisted nematic kind (TNT), which is cheaper and known for faster response times, and then there's in-panel switching (IPS), which is more expensive and usually slower response times, buuut it's got a wider viewing angle and better colors.

On a broader level, the stuff to consider with LCD when it comes to actually buying a TV, is that, on the cheap side, LCDs tend to have worse motion and less excellent contrast ratios than plasma. You step up a bit, and it starts to even out. Especially if you pony up for the best of the best LCD TVs, typically lit up by LEDs. LCDs in general are way more eco-friendly, slimmer, and—because of their backlights—better to watch in environments where you're gonna have a ton of light spilling in.

DLP
DLP is a rear-projection technology made by Texas Instruments that creates the image onscreen using a whole bunch of tiny mirrors that reflect light through a lens. The big thing about DLP sets is that they're, um, big and for cheap—a 65-inch DLP set is just $1500. But you're probably not gonna be mounting this sucker either.

DLP is the last survivor of the "microdisplay" projection TVs, that also included LCD and LCOS techologies. They are great on contrast, but they got killed by flat panel because you can't make them an inch thick.

Laser TVs
Mitsubishi's LaserVue TV is a microdisplay projection set (with a DLP chip) that is lit up by lasers instead of just focused light. Thanks to this, it delivers some of the most amazing colors and deepest blacks possible, as good as plasma sets, but at a ridiculously low power consumption. Sadly, you'll probably never buy one, and not just because it's $5000 for a 65-inch set.

Contrast Ratio
So, technically, contrast ratio is just the ratio between the brightest and darkest images a display is capable of showing, which sounds like an objective enough specification. But like many specifications, this one has been turned into a marketing tool, and subverted to a point where it is not helpful. In the lab, there are several kinds of contrast ratios: Static, which is the ratio between the brightest and darkest a screen can display simultaneously, and dynamic, which is the darkest and lightest a screen can ever be at any given time. Sadly, it's this latter figure that most TV makers brazenly display on their boxes, to the tune of ridiculous numbers like 1,000,000:1 (or more). It's utterly meaningless, and you're better off ignoring it.

OLED
It's the beautiful future of television, but vastly too expensive for anyone but CEOs to own right now because OLED displays are really hard (read: expensive) to make at large sizes. "OLED" stands for organic light-emitting diode, and what's special is that the individual pixels light up by themselves, like plasma, but can be laid out on a single sheet of glass (or plastic), like LCD, so they get the best of both: They're super thin, they don't need a backlight, they have higher contrast, and they're energy efficient too. Also, they may one day—soon—be bendy!

LED TVs or LED Backlighting
While a standard LCD set is lit up by a cold-cathode fluorescent lamp (think dreary lighting from high school), the best LCD sets use LEDs (light-emitting diodes). They can be configured a few different ways: Edge-lit, where the LEDs are arranged in strips along the sides of the TV, and allow it to be super-thin; and backlit, where a grid array of hundreds of LEDs sits behind the screen and, with local dimming, where clusters of lights turn on and off individually, offers the best LCD money can buy. Three of the five best TVs you can buy are LED-lit, if that tells you anything. And no, they're not cheap.

3D
If you thought you heard a metric shitton about 3D this year, just wait for 2010. We have a giant primer on 3D tech right here, but there's just a couple you really need to know. Polarized 3D glasses are the cheap 3D for the masses—i.e., IMAX—where two synced projectors throw out two different images are slightly different polarizations that can only be seen by one eye at a time, making your brain see stuff in 3D without that annoying red/blue thing.

And while we kinda made fun of them, shutter glasses are actually the way 3D is moving in nicer implementations, from Panasonic and Nvidia, among others. Essentially, the glasses are battery powered, and shutters blink rapidly over each eye timed to the refresh rate of the display, so each eye sees a slightly different image as the shutter opens. It works better on plasma than LCD (even 120Hz models), in our experience.

Anti-Glare vs. Anti-Reflective
Anti-glare and anti-reflective displays, surprisingly are not the same thing. Anti-glare displays often try to diffuse light coming at a display with a treated or textured surface, almost like a "matte" finish. It's about cutting back external light hitting the display, but the tradeoff is that the picture coming through may not be as clear. Anti-reflective deals with light that comes from the display itself, as well as external light, and handles this with special coatings or films that minimize reflections from all angles to make the picture clearer. (Just think about eyeglasses, with that greenish coating. Same idea.)

HDMI
Honestly, the only thing you really need to know about but the High-Definition Multimedia Interface—you know, HDMI—is that the cables in most retail stores cost waaaaaay too much. If you pay anything over $10 for an HDMI cable, you are getting suckered. Order cheaper cables from Monoprice.com and other retailers—they do just fine as long as you're not installing them inside your walls. (If you're doing that, you should pick something heavily coated and insulated, and built to last a few generations of TV.) Oh, and there's a new version coming out—HDMI 1.4—that supports higher resolutions and internet. Not only will that require brand new HDMI cables, it will require new TVs and new content too, so it's a ways off.

Other HDTV Guides

5 Best HDTVs Under $1000
5 Best HDTVs Period
The Difference Between a $600 and a $6000 TV
How to Buy an HDTV Today (or Any Day)
Picking an HDTV Like a Pro
How to Set Up Your New HDTV
How to Calibrate Your New TV

Still something you wanna know? Send questions about HD, VD, and KFC here, with "Giz Explains" in the subject line.




, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments


Sony Says Up to Half Its HDTVs Will be 3D in 2012 [HDTVs]

Whether or not the success of 3D TV hinges on the popularity of 3D films like Avatar, or just our willingness to give in and wear stupid glasses, one thing is clear: TV makers are all about 3D right now. Sony for instance, has 3D laptops, TVs, and Blu-ray players (plus 3D PlayStation games) planned for next year, and now a senior Sony Exec says 30 to 50 percent of all the TVs it sells from April 2012 will be 3D-enabled.

The extra 3D hardware inside the TVs isn’t likely to have a big price premium, but the glasses required to see 3D content could be sold separately for up to $200. The idea is to keep TV prices down, and let users grab the glasses if or when they want.

The march to 3D isn’t just coming from Sony. Panasonic, JVC, Samsung, and Mitsubishi have also shown 3D TV models, and Panasonic’s first wave of 3D Plasmas are on track to arrive next year. Fingers crossed we get a hands-on preview at the Consumer Electronics Show in January. [PC World]








, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments


More Black Friday Bad News: Why Cheap TVs Might Really Cost You More [Black Friday]

You know Black Friday is dangerous, but our friend Gary, the HD Guru, got pretty specific on a few particularly bad deals. For example, that 32" Emerson on sale at Walmart for $248 sounds good, right? Not so fast.

Gary points out that the warranty on this baby is so bad (90-day labor, 1-year parts) that if it broke, it "will cost the owner another $150 [or more] after the 90th day of ownership and at least $250 to repair after the one year warranty is over." He also mentions that failure rates on cheaper off-brand TVs are generally higher—and often significantly higher—than the big well-known brands.

Make the jump to read the details and check out more of Gary's great exposé, including why a Westinghouse TV might not be a good deal, what cheap Blu-ray player to look for, and why 240Hz HDMI cables aren't just a ripoff, they're flat-out BS. [HD Guru]




, , , ,

No Comments


Black Friday Deals List Updated [Black Friday]

Our Black Friday List is updated with deals from Vizio, WireFly, HP and Amazon, including an entirely new page for Blu-rays and DVDs. That's in addition to Best Buy, Office Depot, Dell, Target, Walmart, K-mart and more. Start saving here.




, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments



SetPageWidth