Talk:Comparison of display technology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DLP Front projectors in bright rooms?[edit]

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "bright". I spent all of yesterday looking at a six=by-eight foot image projected from a DLP projector and the lights in the room were at full intensity the whole time. So if by "bright", we mean "ordinary indoor room lighting", then DLP projectors work fine in such an environment. Of course, if by "bright" we mean "sunlight falling on the screen", then the answer is probably "no". But most other displays don't work well in that situation either, most definitely including direct-view CRTs, the benchmark display.

So I've edited the front-projection DLP data back to "yes".

Atlant 15:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Usually front projectors require complete darkness to operate. I guess DLPs are capabale of being super bright, so that they overcome the brightness of the room? Reub2000 21:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Super bright?" That's kind of a relative term :-), but yes, DLP projectors can be very bright. They use a metal halide lamp and the optical system is usually pretty efficient (so a lot of that light reaches the screen for those parts of the image that are "white" or "light"). As I said, they're probably still no match for sunlight, but when teamed with a reflective screen, they're more than adequate in a typical indoor "office" environment, even with the lights on.

Atlant 13:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to say a DLP is visible in bright light, then certainly the Eidophor should be classified in the same way. With Xenon arc lamps of 3000 or 5000 watts, they were brighter than DLP. Not too shabby for an obsolete technology.

RastaKins 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't LCD front-prjection be classified the same then? —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; I haven't seen a new LCD front projector for years (and the old ones certainly were not "bright-room" capable). I suspect it's a function of the fact that DLP doesn't need to absorb the unused light in the DLP element so it can use a very bright light soure. By comparison, the LCD has to absorb (and dissipate as heat) all of the unused light.
Atlant 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But then should LCoS/SXRD be viewable in bright rooms? The Sony SXRD projectors looks great in a bright showroom, and they are kind of a hybrid LCD/mirror. Plus I think modern LCD and LCoS chips allow most if not all light through when off, but have more trouble with contrast and creating blacks. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly open to "promoting" LCD displays if there are examples that are, in fact, usable in a bright room.
Atlant 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "usable in a bright room" column is the essence of subjectivity. I've used CRT front projectors in Chicago's McCormick Place convention center - a huge room lit with metal halide lighting that has exterior glass walls. I was able to use a projector of no more than 450 lumens by throwing it onto a concave, highly reflective screen (the type typically used with the old Kloss Novabeam units). We should list lumen ratings in typical usage and get rid of this very subjective, and frankly amateur "usable in a bright room" rating. K8 fan 05:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing weight and depth[edit]

I think there should be a colomn for both weight and and depth. The problem is that I don't know what to put for the values as they vary based on the screen size. I was thinking that I could list values for specific screen sizes or use words like "small" and "big". Reub2000 02:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if the screen size is the same, the dimensions can vary, i.E. older CRTs are normally much bigger then newer ones with the same screen size. And even modern LCDs are much thinner then the first LCDs. --80.109.39.94 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New technologies[edit]

Is there enough information available to add OLED, NED and SED technologies to the comparison chart? Would be nice to see them there. Should there be also a price comparison? --Khokkanen 08:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for including OLEDs in the table. I'm less sanguine about NEDs, SEDs, and FEDs because they aren't yet in commercial production (AFAIK), even for tiny screens whereas OLEDs are in common use, at least for small sizes.
Atlant 23:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we should also add LED display panels and perhaps also Jumbotron and similar techniques. Sergeyy 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold!
Atlant 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know where to put/classify this imaging system, maybe you can get some specs on this

http://www.actuality-systems.com/site/content/perspecta_display1-9.html

Saw it on C.S.I. N.Y. tonight,I first thought it was fake/visual-effect but no... WOW! 196 degrees rotation slices in a 768x768 matrix, PC compatible. The system uses DLP (one or many, I do not know), I'm trying to find out more info on how it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.126.42 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large CRTs[edit]

There are some CRTs that are larger than 36". There's some 16:9 format 40" screens, and some 4:3 format 38" screens, though most are 36" or smaller.

A little mistake[edit]

DLP Rear Projection Flat lenticular (limited only by brightness) 165

LCOS not listed[edit]

I noticed there is no inclusion of LCOS in these technology lists even though there is a entry for it if you do a search. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.248.0.45 (talk • contribs) .

207.245.81.138 has now added it! Well done!
Atlant 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projectors for medical imaging : DLP, LCD ?[edit]

Digital medical images like x-ray images, fundus images, endoskopic images are more and more important in today´s health care system. There are high demands on displaying those images : resolution, gray scale, authenticity of colors. For instance : a projecor with a high ANSI lumen (standard today) would "quench" very small details in a histological image (very thin cross section of a human tissue). Is there any knowledge about which projector displaying technology would meet those requirements best ?

ANSI lumens are not the only or in this case the most important feature. Contrast, and color accuracy will be the most important features. When I mention contrast, do not be fooled by the rated contrast specifications of projectors. These are generally based on the difference between the whitest white and blackest black with little regard for what happens in the middle. Fewer levels of contrast will make the image unrecognizable. The problem with few levels of contrast can be seen in many display technologies. It is noticeable as "false contouring" or "posterization". In my experience it is the hardly ever seen in LCD projectors, but almost always present in DLP. (You may disagree.) LCD can be set to an almost infinite level of "on" or "off" due to the technology. In this case, the ability to select the level in a continuous range is much better than having distinct levels. In other words, analog is better than digital. After all, our eyes are analog. To get gray levels with DLP, you need to switch a mirror on and off at different rates. Since this is a digital process, there are only a set number of levels. Test it yourself. Take a smooth gradient image from white to black and display it on both technologies. See where you notice the most pronounced steps between shades. As far as color rendition goes, LCD is always three color panels. Unless you get a three chip DLP projector, you will have a color wheel. Try a side by side test with a photo. Use something real where you know the actual colors. Photos of people would be good. I think the difference between full time three colors and a color wheel will be obvious. Finally, I also disagree with the low ANSI lumens. If the contrast ratio is good, the higher lumens should give you more detail, not less. Besides, if the image is too bright most projectors will offer a low brightness setting which will maximize the lamp life. Eotx05 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh rate, brightness and Contrast[edit]

I noticed there is no listing of refresh rate, brightness and contrast. The last two could replace "Usable in bright room", clearing up the constant debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eotx05 (talk • contribs) .

I agree - I've been Bold and added in the three extra columns. Please fill them, people! --129.234.252.65 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Useable in a bright room" is a very subjective measurement. How bright? How useable? If I had a 5000 ANSI lumen LCD projector in a room and compared it to a 700 ANSI lumen DLP projector, with the same size image (another factor), I think the LCD projector would be just as "useable" as the DLP. In fact it would probably be more useable. LCD doesn't usually offer as deep a black level, but in a bright room, the blackest black would be pretty bright due to ambient light. Having a higher white level (more lumens) would make the major difference. I would also like to see some mention of the temporal characteristics as they apply to false contouring. —The preceding Eotx05 (talk • contribs) .

Shouldn't CRT displays be visible in a bright room? I understand other technologies such as LCD have greater brightnesses, but I have no problem seeing my CRT TV in a well-lit room. This definition of a bright room seems vague and subjective. Perhaps it should be removed? 128.115.27.10 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)HD CRT TV User[reply]

Ediphor should be changed to "Light Valve"[edit]

The Ediphor was an amazing technology, but General Electric's Taleria projector was another oil-based light valve that was, in many ways, more advanced. Both should be listed. Also, the idea that the Xenon-lamped light valve couldn't be viewed in a well-lit room is a bit silly. If you put it on a small enough screen (the US military, with an unlimited budget, would throw their image onto 10' screens. Hughes also made a light valve projector. K8 fan 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

I'd just like to say, great article. Short, fact filled, and little to no detectible editorializing.

Sukiari 05:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Laser TV[edit]

What, no entry for Laser TV ? The light source should last much longer than current DLP bulbs Wikip rhyre (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Photonic Crystal Reflective Displays, either. (see articles in nature & new scientist)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.33.192 (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PJ said: Hey -now with the Showwx product/device, a front-projection laser display, the technology oughto be added here. I don't know how to do this, just suggesting it. Maybe this writing will generate a ping.- PJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.4.1.41 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of LifeTimes and Energy Usage[edit]

We need to be able to compare power-on lifetimes and energy usage, to make the best engineering tradeoffs. an OLED wouldn't be my first choice for a TV - I dislike planned obsolence, and current OLED blue wears out in 5 years. Too short a lifetime for a $1000 HDTV system.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Disadvantages for the details. Wikip rhyre (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table Sorting[edit]

I tried sorting the table by maximu diagonal size and the results weren't quite what one might call sorted. Perhaps there is someone who could fix this? 199.91.34.33 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sketch" appears incorrect[edit]

The LCD is depicted to display a frame once in 1/24th second, while the film projector displays it trice. However, I am not aware of any LCD with such a low refresh rate. Indeed, they now seem to stabilize on 120 Hz refresh rate (240 Hz for 3D), which results in a 5:5 pulldown of a 24 fps image, instead of the 3:3 pulldown used in (better) film projectors. Should be corrected. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The LCD is depicted to show a continuous image so you can't even tell what the refresh rate is. --Mudd1 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of display technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_display_technology&oldid=1206764691"