×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Laser TV — the Death of Plasma?

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago

351

spoco2 writes, "As reported in major news outlets yesterday in Australia (The Age, the Herald Sun), a new television technology has been developed which is touted (by the developers) as far and away superior to both plasma and LCD. From The Age: 'With a worldwide launch date scheduled for Christmas 2007, under recognisable brands like Mitsubishi and Samsung, Novalux chief executive Jean-Michel Pelaprat is so bold as to predict the death of plasma. "If you look at any screen today, the color content is roughly about 30-35 per cent of what the eye can see," he said. "But for the very first time with a laser TV we'll be able to see 90 per cent of what the eye can see. All of a sudden what you see is a lifelike image on display."' The developing company, Arasor International, is said to be listing on the Australian stock exchange shortly."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

351 comments

This line says it all... (3, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390307)

"The developing company, Arasor International, is said to be listing on the Australian stock exchange shortly."

I'll believe that it's the 'death of plasma' when I see it, not when the company touting the technology is just trying to pump up their pending IPO.

Re:This line says it all... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390371)

Yeah, I got an email just like that today

'this company's stock is about to explode, buy now'

Re:This line says it all... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390977)

Wouldn't it be wiser to invest in non-volatile stock, that you might be able to sell afterwards?

Re:This line says it all... (5, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390393)

>I'll believe that it's the 'death of plasma' when I see it, not when the company touting the technology is just trying to pump up their pending IPO.

...it will be half the price, twice as good, and use a quarter of the electricity of conventional plasma and LCD TVs.

Combine that with energy efficiency, price advantage and the fact that the laser TVs will be half the weight and depth of plasma TVS, and Mr Pelaprat says "plasma is now something of the past".
You're just a cynic. Obviously this isn't hype.

Re:This line says it all... (1, Troll)

rudeboy1 (516023) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390505)

*sniff* *sniff*

I smell VAPORWARE!

Re:This line says it all... (3, Informative)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390557)

FTFA:

And displayed beside a conventional 50 inch plasma TV this afternoon, the Mitsubishi-built prototype does appear brighter and clearer than its "older" rival.

Absolutely vapourware! No prototypes exist for this at all, and because they don't exist a company like, say, Mitsubishi could never have built one.

Re:This line says it all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390769)

I hate to brek this to you, but prototypes of Duke Nukem Forever have also been seen. If it ever exists as a product, then it will cease to be vapourware.

Re:This line says it all... (5, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390779)

No, but it's entirely possible to configure a plasma to look worse than the TV next to it.

Look at the TVs in shops - they look awful, but it's the same technology, just setup poorly.

Re:This line says it all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390907)

*sniff* *sniff*

I smell VAPORWARE!

No no, that was me farting. Sorry.

Re:This line says it all... (1)

Hercules Peanut (540188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390975)

"...it will be half the price, twice as good, and use a quarter of the electricity of conventional plasma and LCD TVs.

Combine that with energy efficiency, price advantage and the fact that the laser TVs will be half the weight and depth of plasma TVS, and Mr Pelaprat says "plasma is now something of the past"."


I Call B.S.

As some of you know, price is not set by manufacturer cost, it is set by what the market is willing to pay. If it is twice as good, people will be willing to pay more. If people are willing to pay more, it will cost more. If they can produce it for half the price, then they will make more profit.

Re:This line says it all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390703)

The plasma isn't already dead? I still can't believe people by a television with a marginally better picture and risk burn-in over technologies like DLP that cannot suffer burn-in.

Re:This line says it all... (2, Interesting)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390787)

Plasma is way overrated. It's expensive for the cost/year factor over the lifetime of the unit and it's temerature sensitive and pressure sensitive. Where I live, that matters.
I live in a mountainous state and if I wanted to buy a plasma to take into the mountains to a relative that lives there, it ain't happening. I have to buy a different rated plasma for the altitude (So says Best Buy, Circuit City, and Frys Electronics in the metropolitan area that has dealt with returns because of people doing exactly that)

Re:This line says it all... (5, Insightful)

Lazerf4rt (969888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390811)

Apparently, this guy [com.com] already saw the TV in action and was pretty impressed:

The laser TV made the plasma look like an old console colour TV. It was so good, the only way i could describe it was that it looked like a wet photo in a developer tray - if you haven't done photography, that may not mean alot. But the colour depth and contrast, especially the space shuttle shots where space was REALLY black, and you could see the gold foil crinkles in the cargo bay, was amazing.

His post is a comment on another news story [com.com] about the technology. Of course, take it with a grain of salt since nothing stops a company's marketing guy from posting as Joe Internet.

Re:This line says it all... (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390829)

and you could see the gold foil crinkles in the cargo bay

What, and you couldn't see them on the plasma? Was the plasma at 320x200 resolution or something?

I'm always sceptical of the idea that adding more 'x' leads to 'I can see the trees in the background! Honestly they weren't there before!'. HD seems rife with it.

Re:This line says it all... (3, Interesting)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391035)

Traditional displays can't properly emulate shiny objects... It has to do with color reproduction no amount of resolution will help it... hence why TFA makes mention of traditional displays only capable of display 30 to 35% of the colors our eyes are capable of seeing while the laser display is capable of closer to 90%. Plasmas are better then most in this department which is why it was chosen for comparison.

One problem (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390331)

The TV looks great, but if you read the fine print on the EULA, it says "Do not stare into the laser TV with your remaining good eye"

CRT (5, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390357)

I must say I'm not too impressed with the picture quality of the plasma- and LCD TV's we can buy here in the Netherlands. Especially if you take the price into account. I'm glad I've bought one of the last CRT widescreen TV's a few years back. My old CRT IIyama monitor is also better than most LCD flat monitors you can buy today. Hopefully this new technology will deliver the colours and the viewing angles we have become accustomed to from CRT's!

Re:CRT (1)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390615)

That was my hope (and the claim) for the promised Carbon Nano Tube & diamond displays, that have been 'on the shelves next year' for the last 4-5 years.

'viewing range, quality, ability to handle resolution ranges the same or better than CRT, size of an LCD and less cost once in mass production'

Re:CRT (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390629)

Have you looked at LCD TVs or computer monitors lately? The only reason I can think of to choose a CRT monitor is outstanding color accuracy (Which I don't need...), or high resolution (personally I much prefer to have 2 lower-res monitors side by side). As for price... TVs are fast coming down in price and computer monitors are already dirt cheap. I paid only slightly more for my new LCD TV (a Sharp) than I did for my last CRT TV, both 28" widescreen ones. Picture sharpness and color quality are similar, and the form factor of the LCD one is obviously superior. There's also less glare.

Also, while the pickings for CRT computer monitors are becoming rather slim, there is still plenty of choice in CRT widescreen TVs, with new models being introduced all the time. Probably due to the somewhat higher price of LCD TVs, CRT ones are still a popular choice.

As fasr as I am concerned, CRT is ready to go the way of the Dodo.

Re:CRT (2, Insightful)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390845)

Although this post was OT, i'll bite :)

CRTs still have quite a large niche - young/poor people, and have many advantages over LCDs/Plasmas/these new fangled Laser TVs. I am sitting in front of 2 21" CRTs which I picked up off eBay for less than $100AU each; that's much less than a poor quality 15" LCD (~$150AU). The only disadvantage is they are bigger (but who uses the space behind their screens anyway?), heavier (harder to steal, an important factor if you live in a poor area), and use more power (although the extra money you spend on your power bill is still less than what you saved). So long as you're willing to get a decent model (which sets you back maybe $5) you can get 120Hz-160Hz refresh rate, so they aren't going to cause any eye irritations barring you having an accute medical condition. Plus, they are much hardier than LCDs (anything you could do to damage a CRT would most certainly completely destroy an LCD), and (at least in my experience) last a lot longer than LCDs. If you say "but CRTs don't look good, I want to impress people with my LCD" then maybe you should think more about impressing people with yourself and less about impressing them with your computer equipment :P.

Re:CRT (1)

Tomfrh (719891) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390871)

As fasr as I am concerned, CRT is ready to go the way of the Dodo.

I prefer CRT over LCD for broadcast and DVD. LCDs are too sharp for SD. They also exagerrate compression artefacts. I'm sure this will change pretty soon though...

Re:CRT (1)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390635)

I must say I'm not too impressed with the picture quality of the plasma- and LCD TV's we can buy here in the Netherlands. Especially if you take the price into account.


Same here. I've looked at many lcd and plasma TVs, but none of them look good enough to justify their cost. I'd rather stick with a CRT for now. Plus the CRT I have (non-HD) doesn't have that annoying high pitch coming from it.

Re:CRT (1)

reanjr (588767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390851)

I concur, but if they can truly increase the color range as much as they are implying, this will be a fantastic advancement for video (unlike HD, which WANTS to be a great advancement but falls short in practical use). I've always been disappointed with the fact that TVs cannot display a deep black or a blinding white.

Re:CRT (4, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390653)

I agree. The best CRTs are very very good, at least until the CRT starts to have problems. However it's rare to see a good CRT these days. I have some old Apple CRT monitors that are exceptionally good, but for every one of those, there were probably a thousand ghastly low end monitors with 60Hz refresh rate, greenish tint, and a convex surface guaranteed to turn any light source into glare no matter how you position them.

The thing about LCDs and plasma is that they are consistent. There's less art to making a decent one or scaling it up in size, its simply a matter of cost.

Cheap but consistent mediocrity is usually an engineering win. If it can be marketed as "high end", it spells big margins. Think SUV.

Re:CRT (1)

John Betonschaar (178617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390679)

LCD or Plasma for a standard definition signal doesn't make sense anyway, the relative 'sharpness' of these screens actually makes the effect of the low resolution of non-HD television worse. CRT screens 'filter' the image as a side-effect of the way they project the images (you can compare it with a photoshop blur effect), which masquerades the low resolution of the signal, especially on moving images. LCD/plasma tv's have discrete pixels (square ones even, IIRC), and try to 'fix' the image using software algorithms, which generally (always?) looks worse than an analog CRT.

Funny thing is that 90% of the uninformed crowd that follow each and every hype still swear their new $800 plasma TV has 'so much better image quality'.

Re:CRT (2, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390723)

>Funny thing is that 90% of the uninformed crowd that follow each and every hype

That would be most of slashdot then.

That's intense (1, Interesting)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390359)

Not knowing too much about optics and sensitivity of the eye, and assuming this is a genuine product, I can only assume that they are talking about a far wider range of intensities when they say "we'll be able to see 90 per cent of what the eye can see". And that actually sounds quite dangerous to me. Imagine you're in a dark room, you switch the thing on and it's showing a picture of the day sky - it would be almost like stepping outside from a dark room. It would be (temporarily) blinding!

The ability to have such intensities would be great for having a screen that is still clearly visible outdoors or in bright light, but I wonder if they're going to build in ambient light sensors which automatically dim the display to an acceptible intensity?

Or did I get the wrong end of the rod / cone?

Re:That's intense (4, Informative)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390377)

the brilliance of the light emitted has little to do with the range of colours the TV can produce. Seeing more shades of red isnt going to blind you.

Re:That's intense (2, Informative)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390439)

CRTs are traditionally analogue, and as such are capable of reproducing many more shades of certain colours than are perceptible by the human eye. LCD/Plasma displays traditionally have at *least* 18-bit DACs which is not enough to avoid visible colour banding - granted. And that's got nothing to do with the display technology (LCD/Plasma/CRT/etc) - as I understand it, that is simply a limitation of the DAC. I don't know what current standards are but I would be surprised to find that current DACs are generally capable of less than 8 bits per colour channel.

I am still quite certain they're talking about intensity range, not granularity.

Re:That's intense (2, Insightful)

Woek (161635) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390691)

I think they are indeed talking about color range (frequency range) rather than intensity. Classic screens only produce 3 very discrete colors (red, green and blue), in varying intensities. The sensitivity of the receptors in the eye has a wider band. (that's why you can see laser light that doesn't exactly meet the peak sensitivity of your receptors).
Maybe This new technology produces light with bandwidths that match the sensitivity of the eye's receptors better?

Re:That's intense (3, Interesting)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390741)

Yeah, I think it's to do with purity of the component colour frequencies. Maybe current technologies produce, for example, a red which would look like a bell curve on a frequency graph instead of a sharp peak, meaning less faithful representations of those component colours. Maybe the grass really is greener on the other screen :P

Re:That's intense (0, Troll)

Lazerf4rt (969888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391017)

Right. According to the developer's web site [novalux.com] (click the "Home Theater" tab), the TV is capable of 500 nits. Modern flat panel displays already exceed 300 nits [wikipedia.org]. So they're not much brighter, that way.

One thing being overlooked, though, is the fact that there is no video content available which takes advantage of the expanded color gamut. Only HDMI 1.3 [wikipedia.org] has gamut capabilities approaching that of these laser displays, and it's not even out yet. I wonder how the displays will handle limited video signals? Just stretch the color information to fit the available gamut?

Re:That's intense (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390431)

Ah, a true geek. Considering "almost like stepping outside from a dark room" to be "quite dangerous".

Re:That's intense (2, Informative)

GroinWeasel (970787) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390453)

Re:That's intense (2, Informative)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390531)

Good link. The main bit of relevant information in there is that lasers are able to produce more saturated (read: pure) colours.

Would it seem rather that the near 3-fold increase they are are talking about is the ratio of the areas of the two shapes in this [wikipedia.org] graph? So it's not all about brightness then...

I'd expect that many people, like me, are so used to subconsciously compensating for the inadequacies of normal displays that they hardly see the deficiencies compared to real life. I'm looking forward to seeing one of these now :)

Re:That's intense (2, Interesting)

Wills (242929) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390729)

If you look at a light source consisting of a single wavelength of light (monochromatic light), you will see one colour from the rainbow of visible colours. Interestingly, the human eye can be fooled into seeing the same colour by creating an additive mixture of three different colours of light. You might think the mixture needs to contain the same wavelength as the monochromatic light, but in fact by varying the proportions of the three different colours in the mixture, it is possible to create a mixture that appears to be the same colour as the monochromatic light, even if the three different wavelengths of light in the mixture are all different from the wavelength of the monochromatic light. This is all part of colour theory [wikipedia.org].

Current displays including LCD, plasma, and CRT are all based on each pixel creating coloured light by mixing light from three separate colour sources. The generic problem with colour mixtures is that for any given triple of colour light sources, there are always certain colours that cannot be created by any mixture of the three light sources.

The new laser tv display is different because each pixel is created by light from a tunable laser [wikipedia.org]. The tunable laser can emit light at any wavelength in the spectrum of visible light. Each pixel gets precisely the correct wavelength for the particular colour that is required at that pixel, thus avoiding the problem of the limited set of colours that can be created by light mixtures of three different sources

Re:That's intense (3, Interesting)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390783)

The new laser tv display is different because each pixel is created by light from a tunable laser

I was wondering about that! It didn't seem feasible to me (given my limited knowledge on the technology) that they would've been able to "tune" a laser's frequency rapidly enough to scan the entire display. That's many millions of different "frequencies" per second! That's exactly what I was hoping for until I read TFA, which didn't seem to mentioned that at all.

Re:That's intense (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390785)

It requires a minimum of 5 wavelengths to cover the whole spectrum that the eye can see.

Re:That's intense (1)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390843)

Interesting. Surely it only requires 1 wavelength per type of cone receptor in the eye? I am aware that the cones really respond to all visible wavelengths, but with different ranges of sensitivies for each of the 3 types. I remember what the sensitivity / response graphs look like for each type of cone, and how they overlap - but it still seems like as long as you're using any small number of discrete frequencies to reproduce an image, it will still be a rough approximation. You need a whole bunch of wavelengths adaptively tuned to approximate the sensitivity curves of the cones in the eye before you really get close to 100% of the visible gamut.

That is, if you're building the image from component wavelengths. Of course, if they are actually using a tunable laser as the grandparent poster says, then we have the reproduction of the image down to near perfection. But of course, what video source actually has light frequencies as data? Pretty much everything is transmitted in one of the multiple component colourspaces (RGB, YCrBr, etc). Come to think of it, the grandparent could not possibly be correct about this new laser TV using a tunable laser. They simply lack the video input source for it.

Re:That's intense (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390945)

But, presumably, since the signal once decoded contains RGB, not instructions on how to tune the laser - all they have is RGB to work with unless the TV standard is modified to allow for something better than RGB. The only way they know what colour to make the pixel is from an RGB input anyway - so they are stuck with the limitations of RGB.

riiiiiight.... (-1, Troll)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390379)

a new television technology has been developed which is touted (by the developers) as far and away superior to both plasma and LCD

....just like blu-ray and HD-DVD have been touted as far and away superior to both DVD and H.264. Is LaserTV going to be made compatible with wireless HDMI? How about Displayport? Standard DVI-D? Pardon me if I'm colored unimpressed.

Re:riiiiiight.... (2, Insightful)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390447)

Why not try forming an opinion on it based on things they've actually confirmed and denied?

Half the weight and size of a plasma TV. Uses a quarter of the power to the same effect. Increases the range of colours displayed from 30% of what we are able to conceive to 90%. Costs half the price of a plasma screen.

"Oh, but they never said whether or not they support these three completely random display connectors so obviously it's a waste of time."

Re:riiiiiight.... (2, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390859)

"Half the weight and size of a plasma TV. Uses a quarter of the power to the same effect. Increases the range of colours displayed from 30% of what we are able to conceive to 90%. Costs half the price of a plasma screen."

What, and you believe that?

It costs half the price of a plasma? Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it. You really think if this tech actually works they'll sell it that level? No. Better picture - more expensive. Smaller/lighter - more expensive. Combine the two.. get ready to mortgage your house for small one. Manufacturing cost has nothing to do with it - things are *not* sold for what they cost to produce. They are sold for what people are prepared to pay.

Re:riiiiiight.... (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391029)

My point was less whether I believe their hype or not, and more that I am more willing to judge things on specs that have actually been released than rampant speculation on connectivity that isn't alluded to in the article.

Basically, argue with the point I'm making now rather than the point you want to make, which I believe was made further up the comment list.

Re:riiiiiight.... (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390451)

I'm sure it will have all of that in the future. Does anyone know a more "detailed" discussion on the differences and how it really works?

Re:riiiiiight.... (1)

ihavenospine (541249) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390483)

HD-DVD and blue-ray are in fact far and away superior to DVD. The problem with them is DRM.

On the other hand H.264 is part of the specification (but not mandatory) on both formats.

I'm quite unimpressed of your knowledge.

Re:riiiiiight.... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390601)


Pardon me if I'm colored unimpressed.
... But with Laser TV, your color will be far more vibrant, dude!

So how much will it cost? (1)

SanderDJ (1004445) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390389)

I must ask, I'm from Holland.

But really, I'm holding off buying LCD and plasma, because they should become either much better or much cheaper.

Re:So how much will it cost? (1)

kvant (939634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390721)

Estimated price will be between: arm&leg and all the way up to left testicle.

Re:So how much will it cost? (1)

SanderDJ (1004445) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390755)

Estimated price will be between: arm&leg and all the way up to left testicle
I see, so it is much cheaper than LCD and plasma.

obligatory sharks comment (1)

kie (30381) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390409)

But how are they going to attach the TVs to the frickin' sharks' heads? ...Duct tape?

Re:obligatory sharks comment (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390437)

at last! a comment about sharks. The article waited 17 minutes for that one.

White paper? (2, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390435)

Where's the white paper explaining how this works? Did I miss that article on ArsTechnica?

Finally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390455)

Finally someone makes the next logical step and the transient-technologies like plasma and LCD will be replaced with the real thing.

Only people who bought a Plasma TV are laughing about the "Free Eye Surgery" jokes (but not because they're soo funny) ;-)

The technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390477)

Novalux [novalux.com]. Looks like the real deal.

Re:The technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390497)

Thanks for the link Jean-Michel. :-)

More info on the optics (3, Interesting)

fruey (563914) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390489)

I found this link on the optical information [optics.org]: red, green & blue lasers.

This is real, and currently the only barrier is that red lasers aren't as stable / powerful / easy to create as blue & green ones.

If Novalux have overcome this, then real TVs using this tech will be on the market in 12-24 months.

Re:More info on the optics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390523)

Nuvision is using three independent led's in a DLP screen instead of a color wheel, seems more practical then using lasers (insert Dr. Evil Comment here.) http://www.nuvision.com/ledlp/ [nuvision.com]

Re:More info on the optics (3, Informative)

the.metric (988575) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390561)

Red lasers are the easiest to create of all. The issue is probably due more to the fact that red lasers don't have the same intensity for a similar powered blue laser and also focal for different wavelengths.

What we want in a TV (4, Insightful)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390503)

Yep, that's what I've always felt was lacking in TVs.

Not higher frame rates, so it doesn't turn into a blur whenever something moves.

Not more pixels, so it doesn't look like a blur whenever something doesn't move.

Not better content, so I'd actually watch it.

No, what I've always wanted, is more bits per pixel.

Success of new Display Technologies (5, Insightful)

neoangin (126736) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390509)

Price and formfactor is what matters.

Even though Plasma looks far better than LCD, the average consumer cannot really distinguish image quality (many consumers prefer a overly color saturated SD display over a well-calibrated HD display).

They plan for this next year, SED has been planning to enter the market for several years, too.
The problem for all of them is that some companies like Panasonic are able through mass-production and new factories to really push the price down for Plasma displays.

If they can make screens even flatter and brighter and at a low price, it might have a chance to succeed.

If it is just an expensive, better looking device, it can only survive in a fringe market.

Technology? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390517)

Got any details? Im curious if its like what we developed in school 20 years ago. It worked, just wasnt practical.

Do we get burn-in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390539)

Burn-in is the serious drawback of Plasma for me.

Nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390563)

The LCD set I bought online over the weekend hasn't ven been DELIVERED yet!! Can't we wait at least until I get it before it becomes obsolete?

Don't expect miracles (3, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390577)

Even if laser tech allows one to see amazing 99.99% of what their eyes can see.. it'll just not a make a lot of difference.

We have incredibly humongous content in digital RGB, YUV, PAL, NTSC, movie reel formats. These formats contain only what you can see on an existing TV. Hence an DVD would look as vibrant on a normal plasma as on this laser.

Now of course things are not as simple, since for advertising purposes they'll scale the range up to demo the colors. If they overdo it though, they'll just skew the picture too much and receive at grotesque results.

There's a point where a tech is just "good enough" and color representation of a *modern* TFT (notice the stress) or plasma is sufficient.

Laser TV's may succeed if one or more of the following are met though:

- longer life, more durable
- less power consumption
- more portable (?)
- cheaper

Re:Don't expect miracles (2, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390643)

I have to disagree. Their claim is that images will be more 'real looking' than ever before. When was the last time you went to a TV store and were walking around, and thought an image on a screen was a real person for a moment? It never happens, even from a distance or the most confusing conditions, because the colors are just slightly off.

If they can do this and this alone, it'll sell the TVs.

They also claim less power consumption and less depth, so it's 'more portable' as well. And cheaper.

But then, they've made a lot of claims without a lot of proof. We'll know if it's vaporware sometime before Duke Nukem Forever is released.

Re:Don't expect miracles (3, Informative)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390717)

But then, they've made a lot of claims without a lot of proof. We'll know if it's vaporware sometime before Duke Nukem Forever is released.

They look kinda suspicious to me. Their page is nothing more than 3-4 template pages touting proud statements like "Industry sources estimate will be huge in 2009".

Their domain doesn't reflect their company name. Worst branding example yet? No sane company would use "lightbit.com" for their official company domain when their name is "arasor".

A normnal company might register a promotional domain but won't make that their main domnain.

Last but not least, they try to pull it off as if they have monopoly over laser TV technology, but they actually have a lot of competitors with actual products to show, such as Novalux, Mitsubishi etc.

Re:Don't expect miracles (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390953)

You are missing the point entirely. When 99.9% of the existing content is designed with a smaller colorspace in mind, being *able* to display more colors won't make anything look better. We'd need new content to do that.

Re:Don't expect miracles (1)

freemywrld (821105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390967)

Extended field trails on psychophysical effects are needed before such technology is approved by FDA or equivalent regulatory organizaiton.

By equivalent regulatory organization one can only assume you mean the FCC [wikipedia.org]

Re:Don't expect miracles (2, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390795)

Even if laser tech allows one to see amazing 99.99% of what their eyes can see.. it'll just not a make a lot of difference.

you miss a very important point....

Nothing we have ca CAPTURE an image at 99.99% of what we can see. not even the absolute best digital film camera on the planet can even get close to what the eye can see.

so having a display that can show something that can not be captured... yay! that is useful!

Size requirements (2, Funny)

palad1 (571416) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390587)

This is going to be a huge-ass TV set.

Unless they somehow find a way to shrink the laser-wielding shark.

Speckle problem (5, Informative)

DomesticatedOnion (794185) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390589)

One of the major problems with using lasers for displays is speckle, the random interference patterns that develop as the highly coherent laser beam hits the display screen (whose surface is far from smooth when compared to the wavelengths of laser used). This greatly diminishes the quality of display and more importantly, anyone sitting in front of this for extended period is likely to get headache and temporary vision problems.

Extended field trails on psychophysical effects are needed before such technology is approved by FDA or equivalent regulatory organizaiton.

Re:Speckle problem (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390799)

"Extended field trails on psychophysical effects are needed before such technology is approved by FDA or equivalent regulatory organizaiton."

Did I miss the part where they recommend that you eat the TV for best results? Or that the TV is intended to diagnose or treat an illness or condition? No? Then leave the FDA out of this.

Web 2.0 is doomed (1, Funny)

giafly (926567) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390599)

Web 2.0 emphasises pastel [wordpress.com], deliberately limiting the color content to even less of what the eye can see, so presumably it's doomed. Also Slashdot after its new design. But I'd love to see this guy's original press release. Did he follow his own theory that people like more color, or was the text black-and-white?

The color it reproduces best (3, Funny)

davmoo (63521) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390639)

And out of all those colors it can display, the one that will be seen the most is green...as in the big piles of green you have to hand over to buy one when they first come out.

Is it RP TV? (1, Informative)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390657)

For me it sounds like new flavour of Rear Projection TV. Except that instead of LCD projector at back of case you have those great party lasers.
Think about ripping screen out and using it for parties...

But seriously: lasers make quite a lot of heat. If you use them for a while you need to switch them off and let them cool down. Other thing is that you need to direct laser in proper place. You need to use some kind of motorised mirrors (for rear projection like tv) or damn lot of small lasers (for lcd like tv). If you want to use mirrors - they're very delicate stuff, and if you live close to busy road - you'll finish with very blurry image everytime big lorry passes. If you use lot of small lasers - besically you'll have new flavour of LCD TV. So nothing really new.

So it doesn't sound so great after all.

Re:Is it RP TV? (-1, Offtopic)

Woek (161635) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390713)

Wow! Did you deduce all this from the fact that it has the word "laser" in its name?

Colour gamut (5, Interesting)

troon (724114) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390719)

The problem with the extended colour gamut of the new system is that existing source material is based on the sRGB colour space, which encompasses roughly 35% of the eye's gamut. Anything shorter wavelength than blue, such as spectral violet; many saturated greens and oranges, and most cyans are not available, and the nearest colour is used.

We're all used to this, so when a violet flower is shown as purple (red + blue) on our displays, we don't question it. But try putting a vase of violets next to your TV and you'll see the difference.

Some proper digital photography setups try to improve on the situation using colour profiles, which is simply a lookup table to transform the RGB colours in the file to absolute colour values.

Digital cameras can record colours outside sRGB, so if you ensure your workflow never enforces that constraint, you can end up with a file that can be printed using colours your monitor can't see.

Typically, the input file (usually a raw camera file) is transformed via a device profile (representing the camera's actual spectral response) into a working space (a device-independent space for editing). Whilst editing, the image is viewed using a transform to sRGB (or your display's output profile, if you've calibrated it), but this restriction is for viewing only and doesn't change the file. Then, when you print, the image is converted via a device profile for your printer to print to the extremes of its capabilities - which may exceed sRGB in some colours (e.g. cyan), and be even worse in others (e.g. pure blue).

To make use of this new TV system, we'd need something similar - wide-gamut source material, and device profiles for each set (or simply assume sRGB as default, for backwards-compatibility). Otherwise, it's like listening to music mixed for cheap portable radios (i.e. most current CDs) on a real hi-fi system.

Stupid pictures (1)

Da3vid (926771) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390775)

At least I didn't see a pic! I hate when they put up a screenshot of some amazing futuristic HD quality for me to see on my old CRT monitor or in a commercial on TV. I obviously can't view those pictures in their amazing futuristic HD quality... so what do they do? Blur and mute the comparisons.

High Dynamic Range (1)

Knutsi (959723) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390889)

I guess this is related to enhancing the dynamic range of the image, not the light intensity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_im aging [wikipedia.org]

If so, it would not just require improved resolution of the broadcast like HDTV is doing, but also a change in the clip format. I'm quite sure most non-HDR formats today remove most of what it is not expected that a CTR of LCD screen will be capable of showing. It's a natural progression of course. very neat (:

Re:High Dynamic Range (1)

Eccles (932) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390957)

HDRI generally involves more bits per pixel, or a different breakdown of the color and intensity to effectively get the equivalent. Since this TV will get the same input as everything else, at least as far as the technology is concerned I don't think they're talking about HDRI per se. Instead, I suspect it's more an issue of contrast ratios: the brightness level between the brightest white and the darkest black. There's plenty of TVs that can't show dark scenes well because they wash out in bright or dark scenes. Since they talk about turning off the lasers for true black, as opposed to technologies like LCD where the backlight is on and black means blocking it as much as possible, I suspect this is what they mean.

What about video recording technology (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390905)

It's nice that TV's will be able to play 90% of the colors the eye can see, but what about video cameras. Will the technology play into recording 90% of the color we can see. Currently SD NTSC is what like under a million colors. Whats the point of having a TV that can play more colors if the devices we use to shoot with can record less.

Now I know HD has a larger color spectrum, but is it 90% of what the human I can see?

Wrong Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16390983)

Full spectrum color wont make the programming suck less.

The real company... (1)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390987)

The linked article talks about Arasor International. If you read carfully, the real company behind this innovation is US company Novalux [novalux.com]. Arasor just makes one of the chips.

Novalux has an interesting history [fastcompany.com]. They first wanted to target long haul telecom with their technology (laser on a chip). As of 2002, they were developing lower powered lasers for short haul markets. Their web site [novalux.com] also claims a forey into bioinstrumentation.

Certainly, this seems like a technology looking for a market. Will this be the right market? Will the products live up to claims? We'll see.

The death of Plasma (1)

teflaime (738532) | more than 7 years ago | (#16390999)

is the fact that they burn out in 3 years. Most people I know are willing to sacrifice a little picture quality (which they don't notice anyway) for an extended life of the product.

What? No photo of the laser TV? No diagram? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391003)

What? No photo of the laser TV? No diagram?

Bah (1)

hodet (620484) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391019)

Why can't a company just release something? Hype the crap out of it and then underdeliver. Death of plasma? I still have rabbit ears on my 27" $300 TV.

Mon dieu! Grande Surprizzze! (1)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391031)

Wow! A company's bigwig claiming their product, not yet shown to anyone, is somehow better than an existing product, that's been out for years, looks great to the average eye, but that somehow, although everybody wants it, has several fatal flaws! And before an IPO!

Seriously, isnt there some restriction on making "forward looking statements" before a stock offering?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...