Posted by ~P~ on 04/12/06 05:11

Jeff - just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't mean that it isn't
true. Like an LCD monitor for your PC - digital displays give all
information at once. If it is fed pixel by pixel from the system, it is
still all processed and digitally sent as one image. Yes, processed pixel
by pixel, but not a display format like CRT for output at all. The lower
right pixel does not have to wait for the upper left pixel to be drawn
before it can appear and show the correct color.

It makes even LESS sense with DLP which has a single chip and an incredibly
fast spinning color wheel and a million mirrors that must flicker on and off
hundreds of times a second to produce shadings to even believe that they all
go in a pixel by pixel sequence instead of all being addressed at the same
time.

Nothing like CRT - period.

You say "scan each pixel in sequence" - this is flat out incorrect and
contrary to the technology for output display.

Phosphor decay has nothing to do with scan lines. All 1 million + pixels of
a plasma are contained in a gas chamber with phosphor. The pixels are not
scanned, but individually illuminated. Not at all like CRT which uses a
single (or 3) electron guns actually scanning the entire image onto
phosphors to create the image.

The final point though - is definitely valid right now. I know of only a
couple of displays that accept 1080/24p. Yet, 1080/24p output is a standare
output resolution available from Blu-ray. Will we see more (any?) displays
that show this natively? I believe that this is the year we will find out
for sure or at least some more solid info. The current lineup of front
projection 1080p doesn't offer a lot of info and most 1080p displays on the
market don't even support 1080p. What does this mean? IMO, it means I have
to be patient and wait for technologies to catch up to each other. 1080p
processing is $$$. 7 years ago a Faroudja line doubler cost $20,000+. Now,
Faroudja doublers are in a lot of sub $1k products. I don't have any issues
with there not being displays right this second. It also would NOT surprise
me if displays ended up being 48hz if that works out more cost effectively
for the product.


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ea63bd459d2b10298a45c@news.nabs.net...

-This is, of course, not true. Every one of these systems scan each pixel
-in sequence *just* like a CRT. Do some research. Plasmas have the same
-sort of phosphor decay issues that CRTs have.

-And, other displays that can't scan and update each pixel fast enough
-(like an LCD with 25ms "black-to-black" time that is trying to display
-60p), you end up with smearing, tearing, and/or flicker.

-Really? So, just what LCD, plasma, or LCoS display do you have that
-accepts 24p as input and displays it as 24p so you can verify the
-accuracy of your wild claim. Oh, yeah, you don't have one, because
-nobody makes one.

[Back to original message]