Talk:Comparison of display technology

message: I think there should be a colomn for both weight and and depth. The problem is that I don't know what to put for the values as they vary based on the screen size. I was thinking that I could list values for specific screen sizes or use words like "small" and "big". Reub2000 02:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the screen size is the same, the dimensions can vary, i.E. older CRTs are normally much bigger then newer ones with the same screen size. And even modern LCDs are much thinner then the first LCDs. --80.109.39.94 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing weight and depth 

message: I noticed there is no inclusion of LCOS in these technology lists even though there is a entry for it if you do a search. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.248.0.45 (talk • contribs) .
:207.245.81.138 has now added it! Well done!
:Atlant 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LCOS not listed 

message: Digital medical images like x-ray images, fundus images, endoskopic images are more and more important in today´s health care system. There are high demands on displaying those images : resolution, gray scale, authenticity of colors. For instance : a projecor with a high ANSI lumen (standard today) would "quench" very small details in a histological image (very thin cross section of a human tissue). 
Is there any knowledge about which projector displaying technology would meet those requirements best ?
ANSI lumens are not the only or in this case the most important feature.  Contrast, and color accuracy will be the most important features.  When I mention contrast, do not be fooled by the rated contrast specifications of projectors.  These are generally based on the difference between the whitest white and blackest black with little regard for what happens in the middle.  Fewer levels of contrast will make the image unrecognizable. The problem with few levels of contrast can be seen in many display technologies.  It is noticeable as "false contouring" or "posterization".  In my experience it is the hardly ever seen in LCD projectors, but almost always present in DLP. (You may disagree.) LCD can be set to an almost infinite level of "on" or "off" due to the technology.  In this case, the ability to select the level in a continuous range is much better than having distinct levels.  In other words, analog is better than digital.  After all, our eyes are analog.  To get gray levels with DLP, you need to switch a mirror on and off at different rates.  Since this is a digital process, there are only a set number of levels.  Test it yourself.  Take a smooth gradient image from white to black and display it on both technologies.  See where you notice the most pronounced steps between shades.  As far as color rendition goes, LCD is always three color panels.  Unless you get a three chip DLP projector, you will have a color wheel.  Try a side by side test with a photo.  Use something real where you know the actual colors.  Photos of people would be good.  I think the difference between full time three colors and a color wheel will be obvious.  Finally, I also disagree with the low ANSI lumens.  If the contrast ratio is good, the higher lumens should give you more detail, not less.  Besides, if the image is too bright most projectors will offer a low brightness setting which will maximize the lamp life.
Eotx05 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projectors for medical imaging : DLP, LCD ? 

message: I noticed there is no listing of refresh rate, brightness and contrast. The last two could replace "Usable in bright room", clearing up the constant debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eotx05 (talk • contribs) .
:I agree - I've been Bold and added in the three extra columns. Please fill them, people! --129.234.252.65 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refresh rate, brightness and Contrast 

message: The Ediphor was an amazing technology, but General Electric's Taleria projector was another oil-based light valve that was, in many ways, more advanced. Both should be listed. Also, the idea that the Xenon-lamped light valve couldn't be viewed in a well-lit room is a bit silly. If you put it on a small enough screen (the US military, with an unlimited budget, would throw their image onto 10' screens. Hughes also made a light valve projector. K8 fan 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ediphor should be changed to "Light Valve" 

message: I'd just like to say, great article.  Short, fact filled, and little to no detectible editorializing.
Sukiari 05:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks... 

message: What, no entry for Laser TV ? The light source should last much longer than current DLP bulbs Wikip rhyre (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No mention of Photonic Crystal Reflective Displays, either.  (see articles in nature & new scientist)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.33.192 (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laser TV 

message: We need to be able to compare power-on lifetimes and energy usage, to make the best engineering tradeoffs.  an OLED wouldn't be my first choice for a TV - I dislike planned obsolence, and current OLED blue wears out in 5 years.  Too short a lifetime for a $1000 HDTV system.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Disadvantages for the details. Wikip rhyre (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of LifeTimes and Energy Usage 

message: I tried sorting the table by maximu diagonal size and the results weren't quite what one might call sorted.  Perhaps there is someone who could fix this? 199.91.34.33 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Sorting 

message: The LCD is depicted to display a frame once in 1/24th second, while the film projector displays it trice. However, I am not aware of any LCD with such a low refresh rate. Indeed, they now seem to stabilize on 120 Hz refresh rate (240 Hz for 3D), which results in a 5:5 pulldown of a 24 fps image, instead of the 3:3 pulldown used in (better) film projectors. Should be corrected. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The LCD is depicted to show a continuous image so you can't even tell what the refresh rate is. --Mudd1 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sketch" appears incorrect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of display technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091009163303/http://www.earlytelevision.org/dumont_ra119.html to http://www.earlytelevision.org/dumont_ra119.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825105355/http://laservuetv.com/products.php to http://www.laservuetv.com/products.php
*Added  tag to http://www.qualcomm.com/common/documents/brochures/MCL1053_Bichrome_1.2_landscape_v2_new.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.qualcomm.com/technology/imod/media/pdf/IMOD_Technology_Overview_WP.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified