What is Digg?97 Comments
- Brewdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+54I feel like I'm perpetually waiting for the "next big thing" in a technology field.
-Why buy an iPod when one with twice the memory will be available in 12 months?
-Why buy DVD's when high definition is available, but why buy high definition DVD's when one of the formats may die in a year?
-Why buy an LCD or plasma TV when laser could be available next Christmas?
These in mind, I haven't bought anything but clothes and food for years. - astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53From the pic on the site, I am waiting for them to have pieces of words to come out
of their mouths.
La....
........ser....
.....Laser..... - scanman20, on 10/12/2007, -1/+50Those crafty Aussies. First boomerangs and now this.
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Sounds nice, but how does it work. This is Digg, not Reuters.
- TheUngod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33He claims they will be much cheaper than Plasma, but I doubt that. They'll charge whatever people will pay, so I expect it to be MORE than plasma, if indeed the quality is better. Certainly will not be cheaper at first though, no matter how much less they cost to produce.
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Please put your eyes directly in front of the screen for free laser eye surgery.
- ponk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Jesus no what are you thinking! Dont buy clothes...
everyone knows wearable computers and ipod jackets are going to take off big in the future - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Interesting if true. I can't wait to see how they look on the showroom floor, and see what they are going to be priced at.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15A large sector is being left out of the hi-def market: middle to lower-class families. Is it really inconceivable that a profitable business model might try to reach out to this demographic?
Business is business. These people are out to make money, and if they can cut costs to meet consumer's needs, they'll do it. - ItsGus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15the PRODUCTION COST might legitimately be lower than plasma, but i agree they will charge whatever people are willing to pay
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11But does it have a stun setting? My TV has a "brightness" setting but it appears to be broken, the shows are dumber than ever.....
- brendanc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12ZOMG LAZERS PEW PEW
Just kidding. Well, it will bring a whole new level of enjoyment when watching Star Wars... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18I think there might be sharks involved..
- luke--, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15yeah and if the glass breaks it's LAZERS TO THE EYES!
- VorpalK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Do not look into Laser TV with remaining eye.
- FreeiPodGuy.com, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I once had a D&D cleric who carried a +1 Futurama reference.
- wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm still waiting for SED.
As far costs half the price of LCD/plasma.. what a load of *****. How many times have we heard some wizzguy talking about his new way of doing whatever at lower prices and how many times have we seen that something appear on the market. I for one haven't seen once... And if it did appear on the market, it wasn't cheap as promised, obviously.
There's no way they would release a new technology to the market at a cheaper price than what we currently have. All mass production products start at high retail costs and eventually roll down to a reasonable price for Joe Average to be able to afford. That's how it works. And by that time there's already something new on the market. It's obvious and very logical. - teddyrux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Great. Now I have to wait another year to not buy a TV I can't afford, eventually buy it once the price drops, and watch it become the second best thing just like the 27 generations of plasma that have already come and gone.
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm just waiting for the "wtf do we do now" moment. Then I could buy some nice piece of hardware that won't devolve into a doorstop in two years.
- krellor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Probably cost. Even though they say "cheaper" they are probably saying in comparison to large screen (> 50") plasmas. The technology probably has a base overhead regardless of size of the TV. For instance, no matter the screen size, lets say the chip costs $1,000, and then you add all the other costs. So you only get "cheaper" TV's after a certain size is reached, and the plasma counterparts become ungodly expensive. Just like:
Laser: f(x) = 25x + 1000
LCD: f(x)= 20x + 250 where x < 25
LCD: f(x)= 50x + 250 where x < 45
where y is cost and x is size in inches, and the constant is the base price of the technology. In this case a 20" LCD is $650, whereas a 20" laser would cost $1,500. In the case of this piecewise function the point of intersection is 30 inches. At 30 inches the LCD and the laser are the same price, at $1,750. Obviously the math here is just to show the principle, it would have all kinds of other variables such as produciton costs, etc... not to menton the coefficients are skewed. - drfloyd5, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8In the meantime, you don't have anything. I avoided buying things for a 3 years while I waited for the technology to platue. I worked my 386 20Mhz until I couldn't stand it anymore. When I finally broke down, I purchased leading edge, not bleeding edge. It had been so long I jumped from 20Mhz to 400Mhz!
There is so much useful stuff out there, it's a shame to miss it for fear that you will have obsoloete stuff in a year ot two. Just embrace the obsolecence and get the cheaper on-the-way-out stuff. It was once the "HOT" stuff. - Eccles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If the production cost is lower,. the optimal price is typically lower. This is because you end up making more items, so despite a smaller per-item profit, you make more overall due to higher sales. So it's quite possible they'll be cheaper if the production cost is less, and plasmas will just go the way of S-VHS.
- geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4All these guys can talk about are the manufacturing costs assoiciated with their product/technology. The manufacturers producing the sets will put whatever MSRP they want on the product. You can't really blame the creators of the technology for what the manufacturers are selling it for.
- ffingers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6i hate to say it, but i will believe when "I" see it...
personally, i don't care much for plasmas...the burn-in, image retention, the babying needing to be done....i picked up a LCoS and it is great....however, if laser can address all those issues AND be cheaper...i welcome our new tv overlords...
however, this does sound to good to be true...even IF it was cheaper, they won't sell it cheaper because it's new, and you don't need to sell anything new "cheap" - numlok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://www.novalux.com/
It's the same laser units (Necsel) as used here: http://www.i4u.com/article5383.html
I have seen first-hand early prototype units running side-by-side against comparable DLP, LCD, and Plasmas.
Laser flat-out kicks both DLP and LCD's asses. When compared to Plasma, the difference is more difficult to discern. The Plasma "may" have a bit more clarity, but the Laser definitely has more intense color representation (wait until you see its reds!). That said, the "wallet difference" between Plasma and Laser should be quite dramatic. I believe I heard something around a quarter of the cost...
I can honestly say that I'm holding off on my next big TV purchase until after these hit the market (sometime next year). - samy293, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3More details here..
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/business/03hdtv.html?ex=1301716800&en=00dcf2d34532e989&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss - tzon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digging your comment for The Electric Company reference. :)
- be951, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The unveiling of the laser TV prototype was held on the eve of Arasor's public float on the Australian Stock Exchange next week."
So... it is a publicity stunt to boost the stock price in the IPO. No chance that any of the claims are exaggerated, right? - tardmongerster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Using LCD color space as an example, each color channel can be displayed in 256 gradations from darkest to lightest. 256 shades of red, 256 shades of green, 256 shades of blue. 256x256x256=16777216 total colors. Real life contains many more colors than that, and your eye can discern more than 256 variations of a color.
- troon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@tardmongerster
No. That's colour depth.
What they are talking about is the range of colours that the device can produce relative to the range that the eye can see. Current displays cannot show true violet (anything with a wavelength shorter than the blue channel primary); oranges and greens are particularly poorly represented. Google for "mars cyan illusion" and trick your eyes into seeing true cyan - another colour you won't find on your monitor.
It's not about the number of gradations within that range, although that is important - and more important on a wider gamut device.
Read up on sRGB (the colour space that approximates most typical displays) and the CIE chromaticity diagram (which represents the average human eye's response)
The big problem with this, of course, is that all source material is recorded within the sRGB colour space. To actually make use of the wider gamut of the laser device will require new source material, which will be incompatible with traditional displays.
I predict we'll end up in the same situation as we have in professional digital photography - wide gamut source material transformed via colour profiles to whatever the current display is capable of. - numlok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The info found here should answer all your questions: http://www.novalux.com/
It's the parent company (Novalux) that developed the laser (called Necsel) units.
In short, no, it's not SED.
Also, my belief is that while the units will drop the manufacturing cost down to 25% of current, not all of that will be passed on to the consumer (obviously).
Laser displays will, however, be initially priced to compete with LCD/DLP (NOT Plasma, which I personally think is a dead-end now). The price will then drop below current DLP/LCD costs within the first year.
Just my humble (ahem) prediction. Check back Summer of 2008, and tell me how I did! - blork1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6+1 for Futurama reference. Or was that Phaser eye surgery?
- Brewdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not very revolutionary, though, and that's what would call for extreme prices. It's a balance between selling it for more so they make more profit but selling it for less so that more consumers will be interested. At least we know that it COULD be cheaper than LCD.
- ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is pretty interesting... but 1080p tvs are what's been making me bummed about obsolesence. In November 2004 I bought a 55" rear-projection CRT that does 480i and 1080i. I sacrificed progressive scan for size and price.
I was sure to get one with a DVI port though, so I could hook up a PC as a media center.
I realize now how important progressive scan is with a PC. With interlaced video, any 1px lines flicker. This includes all text, unless the font is turned up quite a bit, as well as window borders, and all sorts of stuff. Plus there are a few games (Battlefield 2) which don't run at 30hz. - DarkJedi375, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Haha!
PEW PEW LAZER BEAMS!!! - scooterbaga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder if we'll have a new golden age of people doing creepy stuff with fog machines and laser projected images.
You know… like the episode of Silver Spoons where he used the computer at the science fair. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It may be that it's just as expensive to produce a 30" as it is to produce a 40". That's a detail of the technology and manufacturing process, but since the article doesn't mention either...
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah. What he said. ^
- izzie2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I thought it to be interesting that they mentioned cell phones and being able to project images on anything.The future is finally here.Now gimme my damned hoverboard.
- Bisqwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So it's now ok to stare at a laser?
- relaxiknwarchie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2if it turns out to be viable.... I'll be onboard.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut
FYI - danduke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that's one giant paper clip!
:-) - JackHallows, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Laser..... TVs?
- numlok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By the way, here is photo of a single laser unit.
http://news.thomasnet.com/images/large/469/469336.jpg
Units are normally "ganged" into a three laser (RGB) unit for use in displays (TV/Projector/Etc.). - Grayfox777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This might be out of most people's price ranges for anywhere from 2 to 10 years... but hopefully not.
- dimplemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1and when the machines take over the planet, do not tell me that the TV will be the first to take us out!
- Bisqwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks troon, that explanation was very insightful.
- ChrisW75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I saw this on the TV last night here in Oz. It did look pretty good next to the plasma screen, but then, I'm watching it on a 3 year old CRT... Still, it looked crisper and brighter than the plasma next to it.
Of course, they wouldn't dream of futzing the settings on the plasma screen... would they?
Now I'm glad I haven't forked out the cash for a plasma screen yet. - EComni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@dclowd
"A large sector is being left out of the hi-def market: middle to lower-class families. Is it really inconceivable that a profitable business model might try to reach out to this demographic?"
I wish I could digg you up twice. Both SED and Laser are coming out with these models at 50+" inches and they'll compete with Plasma. WHY? Why not announce that they'll be 30"-40" for half the price of existing LCDs? I can't imagine a new, *high-quality* 38" TV that costs around $800 or a 34" that costs $500.
The average family doesn't want a 65" TV for $5000. -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 