Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Media Television Technology

Intel Delays TV Chip Launch 136

Posted by CowboyNeal from the waiting-games dept.
portscan writes "The Financial Times is reporting that Intel has dropped a planned technology that would have halved the price of big-screen televisions by year end. This is the latest mistep in Intel's consumer market strategy. Slashdot has reported on the technology, LCOS, before."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Delays TV Chip Launch More

Intel Delays TV Chip Launch

Comments Filter:

  • TI had "stolen" the lead... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by beh ( 4759 ) * on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:05AM (#9989578)


    Somehow I like this little press twist on that - as if it was *illegal* for TI to take the market lead on something before intel could get the market for themselves...

    • Intel might use DMCA or something to convince the courts that it is in fact illegal to make something that others were planning to make?
      • Well, I wouldn't put it past American courts to actually pass a judgement FOR this....

        So it would be a pretty sad state of affairs, if I just said, I'm going to develop "purely mind controlled/powered teleportation" and by that immediately block any competition from doing something in the same direction.

        Just working on something shouldn't prevent others from working on similar ideas - unless it would result in patent clashes.

        • ..if I just said, I'm going to develop "purely mind controlled/powered teleportation" and by that immediately block any competition from doing something in the same direction.

          No, No, No!

          You've got it all wrong.

          You don't want to block the competition from working on it.

          The "American" way is to patent the idea, let the others work on it while you sit back and do nothing, then make them pay you for the right to use "your" invention that they developed.

      • Funny, why wasn't the DMCA used against Intel for reverse engineering the AMD64 format for processors?

    • Re:TI had "stolen" the lead... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Aphrika ( 756248 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:45AM (#9989835)
      I think this is more of an anglicised expression than a legal dig at competitors, although I agree with your comments and wouldn't be surprised if it was selected for the subtext that it conjours up. The quote came from David Mentley - an analyst at Stanford Resources, not the reporter - so I'd expect him to be the kind of guy that chooses his words for effect.

      Then again, I personally don't agree with Mr Mentley's opinions. If you asked me 5 years ago whether Intel or TI would succeed in the LCOS/DLP or large size TV arena, I would've said TI. The lead wasn't stolen - not even in the metaphorical, it's just that Intel were always second and still haven't got their act together. Citing 'clear product differentiation' as a reason for pulling a product usually translates to 'we spent so much time on it, it's not any better than what's out there now...'

    • Re:TI had "stolen" the lead... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ben Hutchings ( 4651 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:54AM (#9989906) Homepage
      "Steal" is used here to mean moving stealthily, as in the baseball term "stealing a base". (I believe the words steal and stealth have the same origin.)
      • Well - I'm not debating the origin, nor say that the wording would be purely accusatory.

        But they might just as well have written "taken the lead", "secured the lead" or (probably) quite a few other wordings that couldn't be misread in such a fashion.

        Just look on what kind of thin ice some people and/or companies are skating in fron of media and/or courts... (i.e. SCO's "constructive misunderstanding" of what's linux)

        To me, writing "stolen the lead" seems a very clear case of doublespeak (as in William L
      • To Steal is a verb, stealth is an adjective. (stealthily is an evil adverb).

        So, you can be stealthy without stealing something. And you don't have to be stealthy to steal something.

        Hmm, if I say stealthy enough times, I begin to feel like I have a lithp^H^H^Hsp.

    • +5, Pulled-out-of-ass;

      How on earth is that interesting? They're not trying to make it sound "illegal". You only got that impression because that's what you want to think. "Stolen the lead" is a perfectly accepted, neutral phrase, meaning "to lose the lead to someone performing better than you", not "to have the lead mercilessly and cruelly ripped from your oh-so-righteous hands, like dingoes snatching a beautiful little baby".

      Of course, this is slashdot, where every post that panders to the common cons

      • Aaah yes. More "flamebait" modding. Obviously from someone with an AMD chip in their computer and an even larger one on their shoulder. Grow up, mods. Get some objectivity in your lives.

        • On the other hand, THIS comment is flamebait, due to the comment about the AMD chip.

          The four fastest computers in my house all use AMD processors, but even I can see that moderation is broken [slashdot.org].

          Free advice: When you accuse people of modding you as a flamer incorrectly, don't flame when you bitch about it.

          • I didn't say everyone who has an AMD is an anti-intel zealot (that's clearly not the case, as you have demonstrated), I just said that every anti-intel zealot here has an AMD (which, you must agree, is exceedingly likely) - there is a difference ;)

  • Alternatives (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lachlan76 ( 770870 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:05AM (#9989579)
    Is this something that could also be done well with OLEDs?
    • I thought OLEDs were "the new hotness" too because they allegedly will be able to create them with very generic inkjet printing technology.

      • Re:Alternatives (Score:2, Interesting)

        by EXrider ( 756168 )
        They're still having trouble with the durability and longevity of OLED displays. Though I've started to see them pop up in some consumer devices with limited functionality.

        For example my LG VX6000 [1800mobiles.com] cell phone has a blue monochrome OLED external display, it's limited to being turned on for a max of 5 minutes, text is never stationary on it, it always either scrolls or flashes the information. So it seems like there might be some burn in issues that they're trying to cover up there.

        It's really neat loo
        • I have a VX6000 also, and while the front display is very impressive indoors, it's nearly unreadable on a bright sunny day. I'd be happier with a less impressive, but more functionally useful, reflective LCD - like the large LCD on the inside, which gets even more readable the brighter the day. :)

    • Re:Alternatives (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
      OLED will (supposedly) produce inexpensive and low-power (as if LCD weren't low power enough) flat panel displays. It's not applicable to projection televisions. This is because LCD is not light-emitting, it changes the color of light passing through it by filtering out colors, while OLED is light emitting (as the name implies) and it doesn't put out as much light as a projection lamp. It doesn't have to, because LED displays use additive color, while LCD displays use subtractive color.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:06AM (#9989582)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:DLP, LCD Projection (Score:4, Funny)

      by sita ( 71217 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:10AM (#9989614)
      be sold very near the price of a similary sized rear projection

      Rear projections have not been very successful in Europe. I guess it is cultural thing. We just don't have big enough rears to make it worthwhile projecting anything.
      • "let me bring it up on my ass-cam"

        everyone looks at ass while nothing shows up

        "do we have ass-cams?"

        "No, no we don't"

        paraphrased from UCB, great show.

      • I dunno, I was watching this old English BBC show, Monty Pantone or something, and there was always this story about a man with 3 buttocks.

        And now for something completely different...

    • Re:DLP, LCD Projection (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:52AM (#9989889) Homepage Journal
      LCOS has already been around for five or ten years. JVC and I think some others have been selling some LCOS RPTVs for a few years now.

      It has the advantage of having the highest fill ratio, which means a very minimal gap between pixels. While the LCOS systems are more expensive, they are the most affordable digital display for high resolutions such as SXGA+, UXGA and even 1080p.

      Currently TI holds the patent on micro mirror arrays. If you want DLP, it must use a TI chip. I'm not sure if home DLP has the huge manufacturer mark-up that you claim, but I've never seen any dealer vs. street price comparisons, anywhere.

    • Re:DLP, LCD Projection (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RealErmine ( 621439 ) <commerceNO@SPAMwordhole.net> on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @08:11AM (#9990044)
      For reference on the value of DLP systems, I had my 43" DLP TV serviced by a technician (under warranty of course) because of startup problems and he replaced the light engine. The light engine is basically all of the important parts of the TV (DLP chip, control circuitry and optics) which is built onto one large assembly.

      Being an electrical engineer I of course asked what he was going to do with the old one, I mean it still worked 95% of the time. He told me that they get sent back to Samsung (probably to be reworked) and that they are an $1800 assembly. Basically this tells me that if you add on the rest of the components (outer case, projection surface, input jacks and circuitry) a price of about $2200-$2400 is not too unreasonable for what most would consider a luxury item.

      It turns out that I didn't do too poorly when I bought it for about $2600 new after a crazy set of good deals that included a sale on large TVs, a $300 rebate sign that was left out on the floor past the rebate period (hooray for threats of false advertising!) and no sales tax =)
      This unit normally sold for about $3500

      For further reference, Samsung DLPs are awesome.
    • Just looking at the DLPs (still relativaly new)

      Do some homework. DLP is a technology that's been around since the mid 70's. It's just been too expensive to hit the mainstream market before now.

      BTW: I got family that works at Best Buy, It's their job to know this.

  • Whoa! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dmayle ( 200765 )

    that would have halved the price of big-screen televisions by year end

    Work on the clear english! It wouldn't have halved the price of televisions by year end, it would have been released by year end, with the expectation that it's use could halve the cost of big-screen televisions at some point.

    • And I almost forgot. That half means half the price of manufacturing the TV, not half of the retail price.

      • Re:Whoa! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudson@b ... com minus distro> on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:18AM (#9989676) Journal
        And I almost forgot. That half means half the price of manufacturing the TV, not half of the retail price.
        In today's agressive retail market, the final sale price would have also quickly dropped in near-lockstep with the wholesale cost. Look what's hapened with other consumer electronics - dvds, camcorders, computers, monitors, blank cds and dvds (picked up 50 blank dvds yesterday for $20 CAN - that's under $15 US).
    • Sounds like a typical Intelism.
      Large companies have a tendency to evolve a vocabulary and grammar of their own.

  • Disappointing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Silwenae ( 514138 ) * on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:08AM (#9989601) Homepage
    This is extremeley disappointing. After seeing the technology at this past CES, I've specifically held off buying an HDTV to wait until next spring to get one of these.

    With Toshiba canceling their LCOS earlier this year, and now this, I'm starting to wonder exactly what is wrong with LCOS. I've heard rumors that the yield isn't high enough, but still.

    From what I was told at CES, Intel was hoping to revolutionize TVs like they did computers. Their goal in creating a LCOS chipset was to basically create a motherboard for TVs. Want to build a 36" LCOS HDTV tv? Use this board plus this chip. Want a 50"? Same board with a slightly bigger socket to hold the chip / mirror.

    It wasn't even the price reduction that got me excited - the quality of the picture was supposed to have been a step up from current DLP (and at half the price, I wasn't going to complain). Ah well, back to drooling over the Samsung or JVC DLPs.
    • It is a sad day when a tech company teases us with the "better and cheaper" slogan.

      But then again it can not be any worse then my date last night where the girl opted for "better and more expensive".

      All my favorite toys are against me right now!

    • Re:Disappointing (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I heard that Intel only discovered late on that light couldn't get from the LCOS chip to the screen because of the 6lb copper heatsink on the LCOS chip required to keep it cool.

    • Re:Disappointing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by arrogance ( 590092 )
      So much for Intel's Commitment to LCOS and the Future of HDTV [intel.com].

      But seriously, what does this mean for LCOS? Manufacturers (e.g., Philips [philips.com] and Fujitsu [fujitsu.com]) are still making and selling LCOS TVs or working on the technology. Does it just mean that they won't get as cheap as fast?
      • It means a product was delayed. Imagine that. They wanted to release it by years end, now looks like it'll come out next year.

        It's not the end of the world. Pretty much all products get delayed. Hell, every major CPU architecture from Intel has been delayed somewhat. I was reading about Centrino years ago, for instance.

    • I have been holding off on an HDTV purchase for the same reason. The good news is that DLP rear projectors have had another year to mature and are looking better than they did last year. The new Samsung DLP models have much better contrast/black levels. By the end of this year they are supposed to come out with a 1080p DLP rear projector model as well, although it will be more expensive (~$5000 I think).

  • Next up for TI... (Score:5, Funny)

    by meganthom ( 259885 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:08AM (#9989605)
    Now that it can continue its hold on big-screen technology, Texas Instruments can implement its new plan to please geeks everywhere...the big screen graphing calculator! No more squinting to see how that integral came out with the TI-8900--no sir!
    • Texas Instruments can implement its new plan to please geeks everywhere...the big screen graphing calculator!

      No thanks. I would never buy a TI calculator, unless they switch to HP-style RPN.

  • Nice link (Score:2, Informative)

    by ephemeraleuphoria ( 640619 )
    404 on the /. link Maybe he meant this [slashdot.org] article.

  • Question (Score:4, Funny)

    by leathered ( 780018 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:18AM (#9989675)
    Does this new chip make the Internet go faster like other Intel chips?
  • Not introducing the chip? That does not seem an Intel-ligent business strategy.

  • widescreen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by caitsith01 ( 606117 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @07:37AM (#9989780) Journal
    Perhaps this is a little off topic, but can someone explain to me why there is such a huge price discrepency between standard 4:3 televisions and standard widescreen televisions? For instance, here in Australia a 68cm 4:3 Sony TV costs around A$850-900. A 76cm widescreen costs about A$2000-2500.

    Am I missing something obvious, or is this just blatant pimping of the market while demand for widescreens is high? I can't see why there would be much more tech involved in a widescreen vs. standard ratio screen.

    As a secondary question (for extra credit), are people really so dumb that they don't realise that a large 4:3 TV is the same *width* as a marginally smaller 'widescreen' TV at a fraction of the price? If consumers are this dumb, what hope is there for market-driven 'evolution' of technology?
    • Perhaps this is a little off topic, but can someone explain to me why there is such a huge price discrepency between standard 4:3 televisions and standard widescreen televisions?

      I don't know about Australia, but in the US widescreen TVs are pretty much all high definition, which costs more to manufacture for a variety of reasons (including lower volume and therefore fewer economies of scale).

    • Re:widescreen (Score:3, Informative)

      by mchenrytl ( 633500 )
      You bring up some great points. Occasionally, the smaller widescreen TV's will be more oriented towards the HDTV market so some of them will have HDTV tuners built in whereas most 4:3 screens won't. I personally prefer for my TV just to be a monitor and I'll provide the tuner. For just the point you mentioned I bought the 40" Sony Wega 4:3. It's letterbox picture is the same as the 34" Sony widescreen. So when I watch HDTV on it (via Samsung T-351 tuner) it's the same picture, but then with regular TV
      • Me too! I think I probably have a very similar setup, right down to the same sized Wega, and I estimate it cost me less than half what it would have with a 'true' widescreen.

        The thing that really rips is that 'widescreen' is not even true cinema widescreen. Why not go the whole hog?!
      • And some Sony models (possibly the very overpriced Wega XBRs) have the ability to squeeze the 4:3 image into a 16:9 image, keeping the same resolution, just now in a smaller area.

    • Re:widescreen (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      A lot of 4:3 TVs do anamorphic squeeze too, so you can get the same resolution by collapsing the vertical scan height. It looks very nice. Until most of the video (TV, games, cable, DVD) you watch goes widescreen, there is little reason to get a widescreen with such large price discrepencies. It is sad that for less money you can get a wider 4:3 screen which will make even the 16:9 image area larger, and for 4:3 video, you get a MUCH bigger screen.
      • It looks incredible, doesn't it. For my money, the 'squeezing' compression produces one of the best images I've seen for non-hardcore home theatre. With a good DVD player running component video, it's a sight to behold, and as you rightly observe ordinary TV, sport, etc. it's in glorious big-screen.

    • Re:widescreen (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Note the marketing talk: "wide-screen". Surely "wide" must be better than, well, standard, no ?

      I've been irritating TV salesmen by saying "No, I want a TV with a tall screen, not one that looks like a midget."

    • Re:widescreen (Score:2, Informative)

      by ckelly5 ( 688986 )
      It's not so much the aspect ratio as it is the underlying technology. All the 4:3 TVs out on the market today are CRT-based or CRT-based Rear Projection. this technology has been around for many a year now, and it nice a cheap to produce, and hence sell at a low price. The hot new TV technologies that we are seeing in these widescreen TVs are such things as DLP, LCOS, and RPLCD (I'm not even going to touch on LCD or Plasma). These have some benefits such as a much thinner, lighter set (sub 100 lbs), no ima
    • A basic economics study will introduce you to the concepts of supply and demand. Price of an object has nothing to do with the cost of makeing it and only with an agreement between the seller's willingness to sell at a price and a buyer's willingness to buy at a price.

      Of course if manufactureing costs go down and margins go up seller's are willing to sell at a lower price, while at a lower price more buyer's are willing to buy, until a state of equilibrium is reached.

      It doesn't matter if it only costs a

    • Re:widescreen (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Archibald Buttle ( 536586 ) <steve_sims7@yaho[ ]o.uk ['o.c' in gap]> on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @10:23AM (#9991569)
      The reason why 16:9 screens are more expensive than 4:3 screens is two-fold.

      Firstly many wide-screen TVs are high definition. This necessitates a whole load of extra technology and a significantly higher-spec display, which costs more money.

      Secondly TV manufacturing was geared up to 4:3 screens, and to produce 16:9 screens means having to start over. Demand for 16:9 screens in some markets like Europe has now caught up with 4:3, where wide-screen generally isn't high-def yet. In North America wide-screen TVs are almost exclusively high-def, so there's a double price premium to be paid, and demand for 16:9 screens is a tiny fraction of that for 4:3 screens.
  • We've got to work more on FPGA programming.

    Depending more on the chip fab giants is going to start getting us nowhere.

    If some guys didn't start making computers in their garages, but rather they were made in corporate labs first, they wouldn't have come with cases that open and expansion slots, most likely.

    Now it's the chips that we have to make.

  • Whoop-de-frickin-do-da (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    [some time ago]:
    Intel will be releasing [product] that will change [computers|entertainment] forever, [real soon now].

    6 months later:
    Yes, really very soon now, any day actually...

    [some indeterminate time in future]
    Intel has used the Chewbacca defense mixed with the Monty Python "it's not dead yet" slogan.

    Real technology you can buy today. For everything else, there is marketing...

  • Not just that... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Intel is stumbling over it's wireless initiative, and wondering if the last 5 years invested in that effort is being squandered. The original enthusiasm for seamless adoption of 'wireless computing' has left the building (cell phones, on the other hand, have taken off).

    Seems too many big gambles are making Intel big-wigs think twice these days. The LCOS effort is just another example of too little...too late by a company that is too big and too slow.
  • Do you really believe in something like "halve the price by year end"? As if the prices in IT were driven by a production cost instead of marketing departments :-(

  • Front Projectors (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rick Richardson ( 87058 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @08:35AM (#9990286) Homepage
    Entry level DLP front projectors like the Benq PB6100 and InFocus X1 are now sub-$800, and will be less than that by XMAS.

    These are now priced within range of the average consumer, and will kill sales of the overpriced flatscreen TV's.

    There is a reason that Best Buy et al do not place these projectors anywhere near their TV department. They don't want the consumer to walk out of the store with an $800 (or less, by XMAS) purchase when they can suck them into to paying $2000 or more for plasma/LCD flatscreens or rear projectors.

    Intel might have missed the boat on this one. It wouldn't be the first time.

    -Rick

    • Re:Front Projectors (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @10:32AM (#9991647) Journal
      Front projectors are not for everyone. I have one and I love it. but there are a lot of setbacks that can make them unreasonable for many. Things like bulb life, luminescence of the room, space, etc can easily turn people off of the projector. I have minimized these by also using a 27" CRT just to the right of the screen that is used for watching news and regular tv shows. The projector is then used for video games and movies, or other desired to be big entertainment.

      Most of this was put into place when I had to replace the bulb. $280 repair bill on the projector will help to make you limit it's use. Some research into the new sub $1k projectors do show a decrees in the bulb cost to about $100 but still a pretty high cost.

      • DLP has the same bulb life problem whether it's front or rear projector. A lot of the time you can find replacement bulbs with the same specifications but not sold by the projector manufacturer, for half or less of the price of the official lamp. A 1000 lumens or better projector looks acceptable during the day in a room with mini-blinds drawn. Granted, a medium size CRT is probably the best way to watch TV in the daytime.

        • Re:Front Projectors (Score:2, Interesting)

          by adsl ( 595429 )
          Ok so where do I go to get a $100.00 approx new lamp for either an InfoxusX1 or BenQ 6100? Both these projectors are now around $800, but I have held off buying either because of the need to buy $300.00 replacement lamps:( I too was holding off buying an HD TV waiting for the LCOS with "Intel" inside. I guess I am personally disappointed but I see where they are going. Why do a "me too" 720P chipset for One Megapixel when you could shake up the entire industry with a 2 Megapixel chipset at a decently low c
          • I don't know where to get the lamps because I can't afford a projector, I just spent my money on a transmission for the #%(&@# honda accord. However check out some projector forums, it's a hot topic of conversation.
    • A good screen costs money. A lot of people don't realize this. You can't just go use a sheet or a blank wall and expect it to look good. DLP front projectors are notorious for poor contrast, as well. So if you want black in your picture, be prepared to spend another $800 (probably more) on a low gain screen.

      There are other problems that generally have to be overcome by using a home theater PC, as well (proper scaling being the biggest). So throw in another $500 for a bare-bone HTPC, and that rear proj
      • DLP front projectors do NOT have poor contrast! You meant LCD projectors or older DILA (aka LCOS) projectors right?

        Most DLP projectors nowadays easily have 1000:1 or more contrast ratio. Blacks, while not perfect, are very very good. And you don't need a low gain screen with the HD2+ projectors like the low-cost Benq 8700+ ($4200 US street), and that will get you a 100"+ image with virtual invisible blacks. Compare that with a Samsung 61" DLP RPTV, which will cost a couple of hundred bucks more!

        Many peopl
  • Seriously unless you are moored to your Lay-Z-Boy on life support there is almost nothing on worth watching.

    I bet people get all wet and shit watching Bass Masters on a huge ass high def widescreen. Them motherfuckin Bass wuz ginormous now git me a beer.
    • Generally you're right, there needs to be a lot more high def content. But Discovery HD Theater rocks, there is tons of great stuff on there - if there were a 4 or 5 channel HD package all produced by Discovery, I would pay 5 bucks a month extra for that in a second. And watching Showtime and HBO movies in HD is an amazing experience as well, not to mention HBO series shows (Deadwood rocks). Basically, if I'm around for something, I far prefer to watch the high def version - I still end up watching SD st
    • Ahhh...wouldn't be a thread about tv or tv technology without some idiot spouting on about how there is nothing worth watching.

      Fine, you don't like/watch tv. We get it. But at the same time we don't care.

  • What's going on? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @08:57AM (#9990531) Journal
    Intell seems to be delaying everything. Are there that many bugs, or did testing reveal that they were behind AMD and they are redesigning the entire lineup?

  • that should read - (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kulakovich ( 580584 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMbonfireproductions.com> on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @09:18AM (#9990793)

    "double the profit on big-screen televisions"

    No doubt they have "dropped" this technology until someone else threatens to do it. Why kill the market? There are plenty of suckers out there willing to pay $50/mo for the rest of their lives to own a giant tv. Especially with the holiday season upon us.

    Don't foret the x8086 machines, at some point, were $3000.

    kulakovich
    • pssst, nitpick time, that's 80x86 machines. And originally they were 808x machines :)

  • Inherent Flaws (Score:4, Interesting)

    by konfoo ( 677366 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @10:41AM (#9991760)
    I can't believe no-one pointed this out yet - LCOS in current implementations is critically flawed. Part of the chip used for image display deforms over time and cannot be 'undone'. No amount of screensavers or screenblanking will keep this from happening. I'm not sure what Philips is doing, but all the others pulled their sets because of this problem.
    • I wouldn't call this inherent, but a flaw that I see in LCOS sets is that they all seem to use a color wheel to generate RGB from colorless LCOS array. Any motion of the head or twitching of your eyes yields out-of-sync color streaks. This makes it unwatchable for me, which is a shame because I really hate the window screen effect of plasmas and LCD projectors.

      The straightfoward thing to do would be to use three LCOS chips, but perhaps that undoes any cost advantage that they might have had.

      • Re:Inherent Flaws (Score:3, Informative)

        by Valdrax ( 32670 )
        Interesting. Up until I did some research to refute your post, I had never heard of a single-chip LCoS set. I thought DLP was the only technology to use a color wheel. Every LCoS projector or RPTV set that I've ever seen is a three-chip solution, including Toshiba's 61" RPTV monster from last year, and JVC's D-ILA series of front projectors .
      • The intel page says they use three of these.

        Of course, it brings back the convergence issue (like those of us that still run CRT projectors face :-)

        Interesting technology, they will figure out how to go full color ... give them time.

  • I always wonder if there isn't some Generally Accepted Practice in business (and I mean business in general) to find ways to keep poor people screwed... unable to afford items like decent LCD monitors, big TVs, etc...
  • This article...
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17 864
    mentions that Intel is scrapping their 1 megapixel implementaion (I'm assuming 1280x720) for a 2 megapixel (I assume 1920x1080). Seems like a smart move to me. I'd rather have a set upscaling 720p rather than downscaling 1080i. And if they do this right, they could support 1080p24. And if HD DVD movies are created properly, as 1080p24 with support for Telecining on the fly for older sets. Then you're talking something I'd like to buy.

Slashdot Top Deals

"jackpot: you may have an unneccessary change record" -- message from "diff"

Close