Blu-ray....

[Dr Evil]

Slag tags are a worse fashion crime than wearing a full burqa.

[withahip]

So is that like a tramp stamp?

[jwright]

Now the latest technology has done a vast improvement in the Blu-ray disc which is an optical disc storage medium designed to supersede the standard DVDs. Even the Old Blu-ray are also best with the fantastic quality which also works in HDTV. The new Blu-ray has a five time greater storage capacity.

[withahip]

You'll need a new Blu-ray player to play them.

[Dr Evil]

I finally got the Blu-Ray drive installed. The HD plays fine on the Sony PMB software, but due to the limitations of windows XP has to read and write though third party software (Cyberlink) and play m2ts HD files through yet more third party software, which unlike PMB is jerky and tells me that I need a better graphics card.
Whilst I can create Blu-Rays with my high definition films, to view them without judder direct from the disk it looks as if I will need a Blu-ray player or recorder. But this is pointless because I'm not upgrading to HD until an HD set with as much colour and dynamic range as my CRT based standard definition Phillips wide-screen TV comes out. There is such a technology (SED) but it's been held up by patent wrangles, and the fact that the television companies want to dump plasma and LCD TV's on the consumer before they realise they have been fobbed of with something actually inferior to the old fashioned Cathode Ray Tube. So if anyone has a Blu-Ray player and wants to test the disk, PM me and I will send a copy-since the artists are not interested in selling these disks commercially-and if the sort of hassle to get these things to play on an ordinary computer (anything less than a high end games machine or Xbox) is anything to go by, I can see why.

[withahip]

Is CRT like betamax? How beta became obsolete for home use but media organizations kept using it?

[Dr Evil]

The difference is BetaMax was eventually surpassed by other superior technology. But the "old fashioned" Cathode Ray Tube has never been surpassed in terms of quality or longevity-if you watch even a standard definition, high end, last generation cathode ray tube based television, it's vastly superior to plasma or LCD-you will never want to go back. It almost has a three dimensional quality far better than so-called 3D TV LCD sets-I've tried them out. My only regret is not getting hold of an HD version when they were still available. Only SED offers an alternative, but the manufacturers have deliberately conspired to keep this technology off the market so that they can push their rubbish LEDs and Plasma's on people. When shops had a mix of Plasmas, LEDs and CRTs they always kept the CRTs switched off so the people wouldn't notice.
Another trick they have is putting animations or children cartoons on sets-that way the false, plasticy colours of non-CRT based sets are less noticeable.
As you well know, I am into conspiracy theories. But this has to be the biggest consumer rip-off in history, along with Windows Vista. Both are expensive downgrades.
It is like BetaMax in that professional studios need them to display true colours.

[Dave Smith]

I have to agree.Having just bought Panasonic 42 inch plasma I was resigned to the picture not nearly being as good our old 28 inch JVC tube beforehand for general viewing.This now resides downstairs with freeview and is a great telly.However the plama wins on gaming and films and on physical size so........I dont know.I waited years to get more value for money though.

[Voodoo Billy]

In life, unlike Babestation, size isn't everything.

[Dave Smith]

Tits the size of footballs on there now!

[Dr Evil]

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Surface-conducti ... er_display

[JackT]

I have to agree.Having just bought Panasonic 42 inch plasma I was resigned to the picture not nearly being as good our old 28 inch JVC tube beforehand for general viewing.This now resides downstairs with freeview and is a great telly.However the plama wins on gaming and films and on physical size so........I dont know.I waited years to get more value for money though.

I'm guessing your problem is with deinterlacing of standard definition content. All other material should look spectacular on your Panasonic plasma.

I avoided that problem by buying a stand-alone video processor and getting a 50 inch Panasoinc plasma monitor (essentially a TV with no tuner). With proper deinterlacing, SD content looks at least as good as on an analog CRT.

[JackT]

The difference is BetaMax was eventually surpassed by other superior technology. But the "old fashioned" Cathode Ray Tube has never been surpassed in terms of quality or longevity-if you watch even a standard definition, high end, last generation cathode ray tube based television, it's vastly superior to plasma or LCD-you will never want to go back. It almost has a three dimensional quality far better than so-called 3D TV LCD sets-I've tried them out. My only regret is not getting hold of an HD version when they were still available. Only SED offers an alternative, but the manufacturers have deliberately conspired to keep this technology off the market so that they can push their rubbish LEDs and Plasma's on people. When shops had a mix of Plasmas, LEDs and CRTs they always kept the CRTs switched off so the people wouldn't notice.
Another trick they have is putting animations or children cartoons on sets-that way the false, plasticy colours of non-CRT based sets are less noticeable.
As you well know, I am into conspiracy theories. But this has to be the biggest consumer rip-off in history, along with Windows Vista. Both are expensive downgrades.
It is like BetaMax in that professional studios need them to display true colours.

Most of what you're saying here is either incorrect or outdated.

SED is not going to happen. OLED will though and it is excellent.

While the contrast of CRTs was better than the early generation flat panels, that is no longer the case.

[Dr Evil]

Modern LCD panels get around some of the problems by using LED back-lighting switching off in the dark areas, but in a very crude way-it's a sort of hybrid LCD/LED, not true LED TV, so you do get something a lot closer to the true blacks of a CRT, but the colour gamut is still not quite up to CRT standards-its the difference between looking at something on paper or the real thing. I saw a pure LED massive stage screen at an open air concert in Bristol, and though not HD and consisting of thousands of tri-colour LED bulbs, from a distance it was as good or better than CRT, but obviously being the size of a house not practical for domestic use. I saw one in Bournemouth and it was clear even in brilliant sunlight-even a CRT couldn't do that.
If OLED (the scaled down version of this) really is up to the standard of SED or CRT (?) that would be great news, but isn't there a problem with the life of OLED sets? Also, the price is meant to be huge, not something I'd want to pay if it wasn't going to last-though plasmas have that issue as well. If the price was reasonable and the life of the set was at least ten years, I'd go for it. Bear in mind that a good CRT can last more than 30 years. My Phillips 32PW958/05 also has the advantage of six internal speakers using its bulk as a massive sub-woofer.
I am not being awkward. I am very eager to upgrade to HD-with all my HD camera equipment it's ridiculous that I don't own an HD set and watch it all on a (quite good) LED computer monitor-it seems quality is better with small screens. Or alternatively, convert the HD down to SD for my CRT set. I simply do not wish to be sold a product about to be obsolete.
I would settle for an HD CRT if I could get one.

[Voodoo Billy]

It's strange how we get HD boxes and TVs which give us increased picture quality. The next thing we do is to buy the biggest TV screen which (A) we can afford, (B) will fit in the living room without making the place feel like the Odeon and (C) is bigger than next door's. The only snag is that the bigger the screen gets the shittier the picture quality so we're back to square one.