Laser TVs use only 1/2 the energy of LCDs, and only 1/3 of plasmas, and they can display more than 80% of the visible spectrum, whereas plasma and LCD can display only ~40%. They have better contrast, too.
Funny how one guy with a short penis gave it 1 star because it is so expensive, but who'd none-the-less pay "close to $5,000.00 but NO WAY on $7,000.00". Haha!
Last edited by Ceph on Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ive noticed its 65-Inches, does the technolgy not permit the screens to be smaller then or are they just launching on to the market with a big ass screen?
PS.
Isn't large screen-size the whole point of Laser TV?
I disagree
not everyone wants a 65 inch tv though but want the rich colours and all that jaz im just asking if the tech will transfer over to smaller tvs eventauly or can they not make them that small?
The problem with big TV's is that you can't see as much of the screen at once. So you then sit back further, nullifying the whole point of having a big TV. Is there any delay with this type of television? I know when I play shmups on my dad's flatscreen they are really slow and sluggish.
Some of the best shmups don't actually end in a vowel.
No, this game is not Space Invaders.
Pixel_Outlaw wrote:Is there any delay with this type of television? I know when I play shmups on my dad's flatscreen they are really slow and sluggish.
It depends on the processor. Some TV's have butt slow processors, so upscaling low res. stuff induces lag, vs. HD content displayed on a native HD tv should be w/o lag.
-ud
The problem with big TV's is that you can't see as much of the screen at once. So you then sit back further, nullifying the whole point of having a big TV.
That problem doesn't come from big screens, it's because (almost) everything is made for small screens.
hopefully big screens will become the norm and things will be made for screens that take up a big part of our field of view (agreed, prolly not anytime soon).
Pixel_Outlaw wrote:Funny thing is that humans cannot see in 3 dimensions. You are limited to a 2d projection. Your brain only makes assumptions.
Interesting assertion, but can another animal do better? Obviously our rods and cones only fire so fast, and are treated of en masse slower still, but are you trying to say something specific to simulated 3-d?
See, a 4-dimensional being could be taken in by our sculptural trompe l'oeil. Right?
Last edited by trivial on Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
3d screens and glasses work by sending a different image to each eye. The brain takes the two 2d projections and interprets a 3d scene. This is simply how we work, and it's because of this functionality that we can trick our visual system with 3d displays and such.
How else could it possibly work, is what I'm getting at. Fog and focus provide z-axis cuing, and it would be the same for an aerogel eye with aerogel innervation and a lens I can't begin to imagine. Some kind of grating in space, perhaps. But the photon receptors have to be opaque, or do they?
Suppose a nervous system capable of interferometric z-axis sense. Would there be a replica of the eye present in the brain, so that photon arrival time can be interpreted? Could an arrangement of delay lines serve as an optic nerve for a being like this?
It would be interesting to illuminate a young world only with coherent light, and see what comes out in a few billion years.
Actually I came across an interesting technology that allows perception of 3D images without having to wear any sort of special apparatus. At the moment I cannot remember exactly what it is called, but a Google search of autostereoscopic displays comes up with a couple of different methods.
The disadvantage though is I think that only one viewer can benefit from the display at a time and the more passive technologies have very low tolerance for head movement.
In fact I believe the Sharp Actius RD3D laptop ships with one of the parallax barrier-type 3D screens..
