BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 22d, 3h, 18m | CPU: 13% | MEM: 5804MB of 11167MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Microsoft Preps External Blu-Ray Drive for Xbox 360        Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:53 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
The reason this is pretty big news is that every time a rumor gets out or Microsoft is asked about Blu-Ray they insist that they aren't working on anything and they aren't planning anything. What this article fails to mention is that over the past few years even hardware manufacturers have spoken about a Blu-Ray add-on for Xbox 360 but Microsoft just repeatedly denies it.

Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia ... x_360.html

Unlike Toshiba Corp., which is still strictly against Blu-ray disc (BD) format, Microsoft Corp. has always said that it might release an external Blu-ray optical disc drive for the Xbox 360 video game system if there is demand. According to market sources, the software giant does have plans to offer its customers a BD option.

Toshiba-Samsung Storage Technology Corp., a joint venture between Samsung Electronics and Toshiba Corp., has been contracted to manufacture external Blu-ray disc drives for Microsoft Xbox 360 game console. While the exact specifications of the product are unknown, it is rumoured that Microsoft aims at $100 - $150 price-point for the device in order to compete against Sony PlayStation 3 with Xbox 360 + external Blu-ray drive combination.

The main reason why Microsoft is unenthusiastic regarding Blu-ray is mandatory support of BD-Java interactive technology and Sony’s reluctance to adopt competing tech called HDi that was developed by Microsoft. Even though Microsoft managed to push its VC-1 codec onto both Blu-ray and HD DVD markets, the company’s negative attitude towards Java prevented it from supporting the former standard in general. As a result, the company used to sell external HD DVD drive for Xbox 360.

Nevertheless, as high-definition movies gain popularity, Microsoft has to support Blu-ray in order to leave Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. without an advantage of offering BD support exclusively with the PS3 on the market of video game consoles.

It is still unclear when exactly Microsoft plans to release its external Blu-ray solution for Xbox 360. Hypothetically, the company may launch it slightly ahead of the holiday season in an attempt to steal an advantage from the PlayStation 3. But since sales of Blu-ray are still on a low level, the software giant may decide to postpone the unveiling till Consumer Electronics Show early next year in order to get the most attention of the media with new device.

Microsoft and TSST did not comment on the news-story.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:37 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
Quote:
Rumors of an Xbox 360 Blu-ray add-on once again surfaced this week, but Microsoft in typical fashion swatted down reports that the peripheral is on its way.

"As we've said before, Microsoft has no plans to introduce an Xbox 360 Blu-ray add-on," the firm told Edge. "Games are what drive consumers to purchase game consoles, and we remain focused on providing the largest library of blockbuster games available."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:47 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
how many times have we heard this rumor :lol:? I don't see why they don't make one, surely they can't lose money


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:51 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
I have a 360 and an HD-DVD player. I chose the wrong format. :(

I would love to just be able to get an add-on for my 360 instead of having to buy a standalone player. I can't see why they don't make one either, it's like they're holding a grudge against Blu-Ray.

I wouldn't even have posted this news in the first place if I didn't think it was just another rumor, the original article was pretty convincing.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:28 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
I keep reading these rumors quickly followed by MS squashing them and saying they have absolutely no intention to adopt BluRay for the 360. If they had any plans to, you'd think they would be making some noise about it, which would drive up sales in the run up to an official announcement. Instead what we get is MS flatly denying any involvement in adopting the BD standard. Untill any announcement is made, I think its fair to say anything anyone says is pure wishful thinking.

Quote:
Microsoft has once again poured cold water over the latest rumour that it’ll launch a Blu-ray Disc drive add-on for the Xbox 360.

A blogger going by the name of “Major Nelson” has posted an audio interview online with Aaron Greenberg, Microsoft’s Group Product Manager for the Xbox 360. In the interview, which took place at the Tokyo Game Show this week, Greenberg said: “We have no plans to integrate Blu-ray into the Xbox experience.”

Earlier this week, it was rumoured that a joint venture between Samsung and Toshiba had been tasked with making the add-on drives for the console, which would be sold for between $100 and $150 (£51-87/€73-110).

However, Greenberg went on to say: “We also believe that the future's digital, and that's why we've invested in a massive library of entertainment content.”

His comments echoed a statement released by Microsoft back in May in which it stated that is has “no plans to introduce a Blu-ray drive for Xbox 360” because “games are what drive consumers to purchase game consoles”.


Greenberg also went on to disparage Blu-ray as a format and said that “if you look at retail sales and availability, there's not a lot there, and what is there is at a premium.

"It's pretty clear it's not the next DVD,” he said.


http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/10/10 ... ay_denial/


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:18 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:29 pm

Posts
43

Location
Southampton, UK

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows Vista x64 SP1
Well unless they do it I'll be buying a PS3 for it's Blu-Ray technology. I have a 360 + HD DVD Drive, now that formats dead I've been waiting to see if Blu-Ray will come to the 360. Seems like most people who understand HD technology feel the same or have already bought a PS3 for that reason.

_________________
We're all gonna die anyway, so what's the point?

Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64bit, AMD Phenom 9950BE OC to 3.01GHz, 8GB OCZ Platinum 1066MHz, 1TB HDD, BFG nVidia GeForce GTX 285 OC 1GB, SoundBlaster X-Fi Fatal1ty Edition Champion Series


Top  Profile  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:44 pm 
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7426
I think Microsoft are actually waiting for the bluray hysteria to calm down. Of course it would be in Microsofts best interest to release a new version of 360 with a built in bluray player, or at least offer an external one. But once "regular" bluray players are cheap no one will really care if there is on in the 360 or not. If I paid to get a new gaming console bluray support would be my LAST thing on the list, since I care more about the game list than what tech the console supports. Regardless of the low efforts MS made with making the 360 stable and silent the fact still remains that the game library is quite more extensive on the 360 than PS3. And in more than one occasion the 360 has shown to deliver a better gaming quality than the PS3, even if the PS3 may be more powerful technologically speaking.

Everyone rants about that 360 doesn't have bluray yada yada, but I have not met any PS3 owner that has claimed that they chose the PS3 primarily because it had bluray. It's been mostly because there has been some games they wanted to play that made their decision to choose PS3. A friend of mine recently got a 360, and when I asked him why he didn't get a PS3 with bluray he simply said that he wants to play games. If he wanted to watch movies he would get a better standalone bluray player and a decent sorround system to fully enjoy bluray movies. Not to mention you need a decent full HD TV, something not everyone has today.

To enjoy a game all you need is a regular TV and a gaming console. To enjoy a bluray movie you need the player/console, a full HD TV and a sorround system.

And the fact that the demise of HD-DVD didn't make any dent in 360 sales proves the point that people get the console they want for the games, not the movies they can play on it.

All personal opinions and bias of course.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable)
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:14 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
Quote:
I think Microsoft are actually waiting for the bluray hysteria to calm down


What hysteria? The take up of BluRay has been dire. There was no fanfair, no public rush to go out and buy the shiney new boxes and there is even less interest about it now than there was when it was launched. People really don't give a crap about it. Moreso since Sony practicaly single handedly killed of HD-DVD, and from what I can gather, people prefered HD-DVD becuase it was as good, but a hell of alot cheaper. Perhaps that is why MS is reluctant to adopt it, its the new Betamax.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:30 pm 
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7426
OG wrote:
Quote:
I think Microsoft are actually waiting for the bluray hysteria to calm down


What hysteria? The take up of BluRay has been dire. There was no fanfair, no public rush to go out and buy the shiney new boxes and there is even less interest about it now than there was when it was launched. People really don't give a crap about it. Moreso since Sony practicaly single handedly killed of HD-DVD, and from what I can gather, people prefered HD-DVD becuase it was as good, but a hell of alot cheaper. Perhaps that is why MS is reluctant to adopt it, its the new Betamax.


Well, I meant the hysteria about MS getting bluray into the Xbox 360 since everyone seems to bug about it... And you just made my point by saying that "People don't give a crap about it". That probably why MS doesn't bother with it either, and also why the 360 still remains the dominant high end console, despite the lack of bluray. People simply don't care, and those that don't have a HD flatscreen and sorround system doesn't justify the cost either. In some aspects the DVD format "suffers" the same fate as Windows XP does. DVD (as with Windows XP) is just good as it is for the consumers, so they don't upgrade to the next thing only because it exists (same with XP>Vista). Eventually people will upgrade, but only when HD flatscreens has become the norm and when sorround sound systems can be found in every home.

Implementing bluray into xbox360 would cost a lot to MS, and since MS still (as I believe) loses money on the console they don't see any reason to upgrade unless they see that the market is craving for HD content. And for the general public bluray doesn't matter to them, since, as I said before, they buy the console for the games and not for the technical specifications.

And Bluray isn't the new Betamax... unlike Betamax Bluray WILL become the next norm for HD content. But just like Vista, which itself is newer and better than XP, it doesn't give anything "wooow" to the public. DVD/XP works just fine for now, and once the prices go down further the market will adopt the next generation. If you want to compare Betamax to something then HD-DVD was the Betamax of the bunch. In most aspects a better format (like Betamax was compared to VHS), but died because of lost support from the "big dogs" (film studios, corporations etc). Bluray stayed on top and will only be replaced by some new stuff in the future. And then we'll be in the same situation again.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable)
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:50 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
I dont think BluRay will become the new standard. I dont think it will ever be as popular as dvd. I also dont think that has much to do with HD flatscreens and home cinema. Home cinema has been around for a very long time, as you probably know. Pro Logic was all the rage and sold well. Then we had DD and DTS which were just as popular as Pro Logic and retailers sold amps and speakers like nobody's business. Then things started to somewhat die down with the introduction of DD-ES and its DTS equivilent, and then just when people were getting their heads around 6.1 all their crap was superceeded by 7.1 and Dolby HD and DTS HD (we're up to 10.1 last I looked). People get tired of upgrading their stuff for every new trend the industry decides is going to be the next big thing. Most people are probably happy with 5 speakers and a sub and dont particularly care for having a room full of speakers that will only [censored] off the neighbors.

Likewise with flatscreens. There is such a thing as too much choice. We had 100hz progressive, then 720p then 1080p and we had plasma which was crap, then LCD which was crap. Early adopters were disappointed with the quality of both, neither of which lived up to the hype. Then Plasma sort of died and LCD started getting better. Alot of people have already moved on from CRT due to the improvements in the technology and the drop in price, not because they were in awe of the tech, but because CRT's dont last forever and LCD is about all you can get nowadays. Now we're in a position where people are upgrading to all singing all dancinf 1080p HD LCD tv's which will be obsolete within the next 2 years when the next generation of HD screens hit retailers. So once again, the consumer has gottent the crap end of the stick.

This brings me nicely to BluRay. Its over priced for a start, both as hardware goes and as far as the cost of titles go. Still people would probably rather spend the same money on dvd titles becuase they are cheaper and they are perfectly happy with the quality of them. Most people have the option to subscribe to HDTV services, but they dont. They dont care. They dont care about 1080p, they dont care about 21.1 channels of HD audio and they dont care about over priced tech they see as pointless. Sony has tried to prevent the Betamax scenario from happening all over again by killing off the market compitition with dubious business practices. Something they never managed to achieve with VHS, which also happened to be cheaper but of "lesser quality" than Betamax. I do not think it will work. By the time they even come close to persuading Joe Public that BD is worth the investment, they'll move the goal posts and expect those same people to carry along the upgrade path of years gone by. Wont happen. I know I have no interest in BluRay (and Im somewhat of a technophile) and I cannot honestly say I know anyone who is interested in it. I may have been persuaded at some point to upgrade to HD-DVD, but thats no longer an option. That doesnt mean I'm going to line Sony's pockets becuase they are the only alternative however, something I'm sure they were hoping would happen by killing off HD-DVD and robbing people of choice.

If anything is going to be the new HD standard, its on demand HD streaming and hard drive recording/download. Not BluRay.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:25 am 
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7426
Bluray is already the next standard. The only contender was HD-DVD which isn't supported even by the companies that came up with it. And there is no other "video disc" around that can compete with Bluray. The closest thing we got are new holographic media which is at least 5-6 years away from completing as a specification, and add a couple of years to that before you even see a player at K-Mart.

Granted that DD, DTS etc are all in motion, but remember this is Joe Schmoe you are talking about. Joe doesn't know anything about DTS, DD-ES, Dolby HD etc. All he knows is that he wants the best picture he can get and a cheapo sorround system. Any store today will point him to a 37-40" LCD HD flatscreen and a 5.1 standard sound system. And the seller will try to give him a bluray player (or a HD-DVD player if he's/she's dishonest). Go to any electronics store today and you'll see it's HD and bluray. And the more technical it sounds (100Hz!! 1080p!! 5.1 sorround sound!!) the more likely Joe will get that, since it's cool and it's better than the neighbor has. But fact is that the only high-def choice that is avaliable today is bluray, and nothing else.

1080p will not be outdated in the next 2 years, even if QHD exists in Japan. Why? Because no network will broadcast it, no affordable panels exist, and everyone has already got a 720p/1080p panel which is all the rage today. I think it depends on where you live tho. I live in Sweden and frequently visit the US, and both here and there EVERYONE knows what HD is, everyone knows what bluray is. I can pickup a standalone bluray player here for less than 300 euros, and a 37" full HD panel costs around 600 euros here. For people that sit with their thick old TV:s this isn't much cash for them if they are ready to buy new stuff. Everyone I know already own 37-40" TV:s, even my mom and she needs a GPS to find the power button on the TV. And for cheap money you can get HD content right out of the wall with the regular provider.

I already own two bluray players myself, but I use them to actually dump the rented movies to my media center, without quality loss. HD recorders are all fine, but they will only replace the VCR as a way to RECORD content off the network, not to replace the rental/purchase market. And once you got that new flatscreen TV and see how good HD material looks you'll quickly learn that DVD:s won't give you that quality. And with bluray players dropping in price people will replace their DVD players.

Bluray is a standard that has been set in stone. You can get standalone and computer units already in stores for little money. You can already buy and rent bluray movies. Games are already released on bluray discs (even if it's far between releases at the moment) and will be the next data storage medium as well. Bluray is here to stay. Of course DVD and bluray will live side by side for a while. Just as VHS and DVD did. But DVD will become where VHS is today, I doubt you would get a new VHS player today... There is no other format that is even known by name that is ready for marketing that can replace bluray. Once that "new" format comes out even the kids will have their Disney movies on bluray.

Remember also that when DVD came out it didn't give the visual improvement many expected, and that was because people still sat with their thick old CRT TV:s. Now when everyone upgrade to a flatscreen they will notice the visual improvements. And when they see a bluray demo movie run in the store the choice will be easy.

You may have reasons to not get a bluray player because you may not need it, or you don't want to give a cent to Sony. That's all fine, but remember that the majority of the consumers are the ones that don't bother about that stuff. They get stuff because the sales people say it's cool. And they get the stuff because they know their friends said so. And because they read all the big ads in the newspapers. I don't know about your newspapers, but here they all say full HD 1080p, sorround sound, ultrasharp video, HD decoder box included, next generation video and audio with bluray, and large discounts. And whoever that reads all that and looks at their old 1994 CRT TV knows what to get.

You say you are a technophile which also says that you were an early adopter with plasma, LCD etc. You may see that the difference isn't that much between each generation of stuff you got. Most people don't go through all that, some has gotten the first gen plasmas, but those are, as you said yourself, crap, especially crap compared to the current full HD LCD:s.

Anyway, this is way too much ranting for me :P. But if you want to see what's hot and what's not, then just go to a sales guy and ask them what sells and what the rage is about. I know this thread started with Xbox360 and claimed future Bluray support so I will end my long rant on that note...

Microsoft will implement Bluray in Xbox360 when they see that it's needed to earn more money. Since it at the moment will cost more than its worth MS are biding their time until the market is ready.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable)
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:37 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
OG wrote:
Perhaps that is why MS is reluctant to adopt it, its the new Betamax.


I'm pretty sure that HD-DVD, being the abandoned format, is Betamax.

Blu-Ray prices will come down, HDTVs will eventually be the only choice and become even cheaper than they already are, and it will become the new de-facto standard format even if it takes much longer than DVD did. DVD was introduced in the US in 1997 and DVD sales didn't pick up until late 2000. DVD didn't have the a competing format or older televisions holding it back like Blu-Ray does. HD-DVD beat Blu-Ray to market by a few months. Blu-Ray was launched in June 2006 and HD-DVD was still a competing format until February of this year. All of these have contributed to the slow up-take of Blu-Ray, and now we have this world-wide economic down-turn (at least that's what the news says).

CRTs really do last forever in comparison to LCD and Plasma (which is still around), it's a shame the technology couldn't have advanced any further and we're now stuck with these TVs that don't last close to as long. My mother's CRT television was manufactured in 1989 and it works fine.

Early adopters always get the crap-end of the stick, that's just how it works. 1080p isn't going anywhere, the cable and satellite companies use 1080i and 720p as standards, they aren't about to change all of their equipment. The only HD disc format is 1080p, and the only downloadable HD formats are 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. Those are the standards, they aren't going to change. 1080p televisions aren't going to be out of date resolution wise for years and years. If you're referring to refresh rates, color quality and all that other crap, all of that was happening before anyone had ever heard of HD, it's nothing new.

As for your comparison to VHS and Betamax, that doesn't work. Betamax had it's drawbacks for the consumers. Technologically speaking, the only difference between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is the medium it is stored on. Resolutions and codecs are the same for the most part. Blu-Ray simply had larger discs (in terms of storage, not physical size) and required a new manufacturing process, which meant a higher INITIAL cost to everyone, that cost is falling, just like DVDs price fell. VHS at launch could hold four hours per cartridge, while Betamax on the other hand could only hold one hour of video. That's a huge difference, and in this case, HD-DVD more closely relates to Betamax than Blu-Ray, as Blu-Ray has a larger amount of storage per disc. While Sony realized this was a problem for Betamax, consumers had already flocked to VHS. Sony introduced Betamax-1 and Betamax-2, holding a maximum of 5 hours of video, while VHS could hold anywhere between 5:20 and 11:20 of video, which is way more than Betamax ever could.

Streaming HD, cable HD, and satellite HD, no matter which service, are ALL much much worse quality than Blu-Ray. Digital itself allows the companies to compress the video to a quality much worse than most people ever saw on their analog televisions.

Everyone is happy now that one of them is gone, the industry and the consumers. No one wants that choice or that confusion. No one wants to buy two players for two formats that are, quality wise, indistinguishable, and will eventually be, just as HD-DVD would have been, as cheap as DVDs are today.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:43 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:28 pm

Posts
352
OG wrote:
we had plasma which was crap, then LCD which was crap. Early adopters were disappointed with the quality of both, neither of which lived up to the hype. Then Plasma sort of died and LCD started getting better.


LCD's are indeed crap. That matte finish completely destroys the color quality, I would never buy one myself. DLP... honestly, I've never seen a DLP, but from what I hear they're a lot bulkier without that great of picture.

Honestly, I spent about a month researching which television to buy, and I ended up with a 46" Panasonic Plasma that does 1080p for $1300 shipped, and I love it. There is no comparison to an LCD, set up properly the blacks are very black, colors are crisp, and I have a life expectancy over a decade. I consider plasma to be the successor to CRT, LCD and DLP are just cheap knock-offs to me.

But... I might change my mind when the OLED screens start getting up there in size and down there in price. I have a black/green OLED screen on my MP3 player, and even that looks gorgeous.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:48 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
the biggest problem is that black appears grey on lcds
like this monitor im using, booting up windows and it's NOT black
LCD TVs are abit better than monitors, but will never get black


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:22 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
XDude wrote:
LCD TVs are abit better than monitors, but will never get black


Do you mean to say that LCDs are better than CRTs? They aren't in any respect except that they're smaller, generate less heat, and use less electricity.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:03 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
LCD's can produce black fine. Although, some LCD's let backlight bleed through which can make an all black screen appear grey, as do brightness and contrast settings. If I stick solid black as a background, it sure looks black to me.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:19 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
OG wrote:
LCD's can produce black fine. Although, some LCD's let backlight bleed through which can make an all black screen appear grey, as do brightness and contrast settings. If I stick solid black as a background, it sure looks black to me.

same here


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:54 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
That's funny, the less than a year old mid-range LCD in my house looks awfully grey to me. Unless you have a state of the art, expensive screen then you must just be used to the grey... or you're you in denial that you're expensive television isn't as great as you'd think, or you need to have your eyes checked.

Quote:
That matte finish completely destroys the color quality


I prefer matte screens. While glossy may give you a better image, unless you are in a completely dark room it's practically impossible to watch television without some other light source interfering. The quality, even taking matte vs glossy into consideration, is so all over the place that you can't simply say a glossy screen is better than a matte one. My laptop unfortunately has a glossy screen and I can't even bring it near a window, let alone outside. I've tried to use it outside before but it's pointless. The reflection, which is the only thing I can see, really brings out the imperfections in the panel though.

I'd take a progressive scan CRT (a computer monitor, AFAIK there aren't any progressive scan CRT televisions out there) any day over anything else... unless of course we're talking about something over 36". CRTs can produce pure black, which is impossible for LCDs/Plasmas because they can't simply shut off the pixels that aren't displaying anything.

Plasma's contrast ratio is supposedly much better than LCD, although I haven't really inspected them myself. I know that black is black on a CRT.


Last edited by QuiescentWonder on Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:20 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
i reckon my CRT that i had before the monitor i got now (http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/sa ... 27967.html) was 'greyer'.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:46 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
QuiescentWonder wrote:
That's funny, the less than a year old mid-range LCD in my house looks awfully grey to me. Unless you have a state of the art, expensive screen then you must just be used to the grey... or you're you in denial that you're expensive television isn't as great as you'd think, or you need to have your eyes checked.


And I'm fairly certain that the black on my LCD tv is black, not grey. In fact both the LCD tv (32" Bravia) and my LCD monitor (22" ChiMei), both display black perfect of near perfect where as my progressive scan rear projection (42" Samsung CRT) displays black as a very dark grey. Its not that difficult to tell if something is black, maybe your midrange LCD was built with a cheap panel or lets backlight leak in around the edges of the screen. My monitor lets a tiny ammount of light in right at the very bottom of the screen, so with no taskbar or icons, only a solid black background, the bottom 1/8th inch of the screen shows slightly lighter than the rest of the screen which is most definitely black. The LCD tv on the otherhand just looks like its switched off. Nothing wrong with my eyes.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:20 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
___ wrote:
i reckon my CRT that i had before the monitor i got now (http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/sa ... 27967.html) was 'greyer'.


Then either your monitor was cheap, broken, or the contrast was turned up to high... that's all there is to it.

LCDs can NOT produce black, it's not an opinion.

Why don't you take a picture of your screen when it's turned off, then take a picture of the screen while it's on with nothing displaying. Make sure that you have the camera in the same position and the same lighting. Compare the pictures...

I think I might do that with all the monitors in my house... I'll let you know what I find. I'll even post the pictures.

A quote from CNET, the website you linked to for your LCD.

CNET wrote:
Despite their dwindling market share, CRT monitors still beat out LCDs in a few performance categories: color fidelity, viewing angles, and contrast. Where LCDs are often able to produce a limited number of colors (usually 16.7 million), CRTs are capable of displaying an infinite range, an advantage for exacting graphic artists. CRTs also offer unlimited viewing angles, while the brightness and contrast on most LCDs will drop off when viewed at large angles.


Of course they go on to list the down-sides to CRTs, but none of them are relevant.


Last edited by QuiescentWonder on Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:46 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
Says who? Besides you. Perhaps you can give us some technical reason why they cannot produce black? If its not black then wtf colour is it because it sure aint green and if its grey its the god damn darkest shade of grey Ive ever seen, in fact, its so dark it could almost be black. Or wait, maybe it is black and you just have a crap TV? Some cheap panels cannot produce a proper pure black (poor 'black level'), this is true, you seem to have one of those. But not all panels are produced by the same manufacturers and there are panels that are capable of producing black, I know, Im looking at one now.

Quote:
LCD (liquid crystal diode) displays, by contrast, utilize electric charges to twist and untwist liquid crystals, which causes them to block light and, hence, emit blacks. The higher the voltage passing through the liquid crystals in a given pixel, the more fully those crystals untwist and effectively block light - all of which makes these pixels darker. As opposed to plasma, LCD TVs use the most power when displaying a very dark or black image. This is a difficult process, and despite recent improvements in LCD black levels, only the best LCD televisions (like those produced by Sharp and Sony) have managed to topple the 1000:1 contrast ratio barrier. Recent improvements have brought LCD displays up to the level of plasma. The one continual drawback here for LCD is off axis viewing, when black levels consistently drop.


A 1000:1 contrast ratio is nothing now. The Sony Bravia is 1600:1 or 8000:1 with dynamic contrast turned on and my monitor has a 4000:1 contrast ratio. Both of those represent excelent black levels and both are well made LCD panels. So forgive me for saying that you're full of it if you say LCD's are incapable of producing the colour black.

Quote:
Why don't you take a picture of your screen when it's turned off, then take a picture of the screen while it's on with nothing displaying. Make sure that you have the camera in the same position and the same lighting. Compare the pictures...


Compare them on what? As you assert that LCD's cannot produce black, what am I supposed to use to compare them? Do I take the picture with a digital camera? How do I know that can produce black? Personaly I cannot tell the difference with the naked eye between an all black screen and the monitor physicaly turned off, thts good enough for me, along with what Ive read, to assume that they are producing black. End of story.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:48 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
You're wrong, there isn't anything else to it. I don't know how I'm supposed to show you.

Why do you think you can't find a contrast ratio when you buy a CRT?

Check the last CRTs that Newegg sells and tell me if there is a contrast ratio specified anywhere: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... toreType=1

Quote:
you seem to have one of those


It seems that every one of my family's and friends laptops, televisions, and every single LCD panel I've seen in the computer store that I worked in until five months ago were like that.

Do you understand how LCDs are lit? There is a CCFL (or two depending on the size of the screen), which is like a little flourescent tube, that runs the entire length of the screen and is lit all the way across 100% of the time the screen is turned on. And if you don't have a CCFL but an LED backlit display, it's still the same way.

Maybe I'm getting some terms wrong here and there, I didn't go to school to learn about display technologies, but I'm right. Does anyone here have some formal training in this that can step in and say something?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:12 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
You can show me by providing me with some sort of reference as to why LCD's cannot produce black. Because I've done some searching and cannot find anything saying they cant let alone a technical explanation as to why they can't. What I have found is what I've said, and that is that some are better than others at producing black, for a variety of reasons.

CRT dont have a contrast ratio because they do not produce colours in the same way as LCD, you're comparing apples with bananas. LCD's have a contrast ratio becuase darker colours are dependant on how efficient the panel is at blocking unwanted light. The more light blocked, the darker the picture. If the panel is capable of blocking all light then you have black. Its as simple as that. Older LCD's with a poor contrast ratio, like 500:1, cannot produce black very well. But newer panles can, and do. Even if better panels with a good contrast ratio are not actualy producing pure black (and I'd like to see some reference for that) then what they are producing is black enough to be called black, not grey, purple, blue or any other colour.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/specs.htm


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:34 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
No I'm not, CRTs have contrast ratios... just because they don't produce the image in the same way doesn't mean they don't mean you can't measure their contrast ratio.

Quote:
CRTs have a distinctive funnel shape. At the very back of a monitor is an electron gun. The electron gun fires electrons towards the front through a vacuum which exists in the tube of the monitor. The gun can also be referred to as a cathode - hence the electrons fired foward are called Cathode Rays.

These rays correspond to to the red, green and blue channels of the display and video card.

At the neck of the funnel-shaped monitor is an anode, which is magnetised according to instructions from the display controller. As electrons pass the anode, they are shunted or pulled in one direction or the other depending on how magnetic the anode is at that time. This moves the electrons towards the correct part of the screen.

The electrons pass through a mesh, and this mesh defines the individual pixels and resolution on the screen. Electrons that pass through the mesh then hit the phosphor coating which is on the inside of the glass screen. When the particles hit the phosphor, they immediately light up - causing the light to shine through the front of the monitor, thus making up the picture on the screen. There are three differently coloured phosphours for each pixel (known as phosphor triads), and depending on which phosphor the electron hits, that's which colour the pixel will light up.


In an LCD the backlight is ALWAYS on if anything is displayed on the screen.

Either way, I don't think contrast ratio is the term we should be using, although I have no idea what it would be.


Last edited by QuiescentWonder on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:52 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS