Talk:Laser video display
|WikiProject Technology||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Television||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Invention||(Rated C-class)|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Technology section: "proponents of Laser TV technology claim that the standard will be able to reproduce about 80% of the colors visible to the human eye."
Advantages section: "Advocates claim that 90% of the perceptible color gamut can potentially be reproduced."
I think somebody who's not supposed to be working (or who can get away with calling updating Wikipedia 'work') should do some reasearch and decide which of these claims is more appropriate for the article. The second one does appear to have a source (although I haven't checked it out), so it may be best just to remove the first one, or preferably merge the two paragraphs (probably in the Advantages section.)
Mazz0 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC) ---
I was going to edit the page, but it looks like I don't understand the references section, and I need to add two references.
The issue is that this entire category is controversial. The announcements on Laser TV all can be traced to a PR campaign by a company that was about to go public. Since that time, a source has called into question the truth of the claims made by Arasor. The articles can be read here:
Please note, these articles are not proof of anything. However, they do cast a reasonable shadow of doubt over Arasor's claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see you worked it out. Thanks for the great refs. Chovain 07:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Mitsubishi's left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Link to Mitsubishi Press Release of their laser TV for their Dearler Line Show 2006. http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/news/2006/Mitsubishi%20demonstrates%20laser%20HDTV.htm
Why does this page do not have any link to a laser-article? What type of laser, laser diodes?, DPSS laser, harmonic generation? Modulation? VECSEL, Acousto-optic modulator, pockels cell, scanner. This is a LCD right? Or does it use DLP? Arnero 08:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Advantage: 50,000 hours life
Listed under advantages is "50,000 hours of life" (or similar wording). Is this an advantage or disadvantage. 50,000 hours = 5.7 years - that's not very long at all.
- It's 5.7 years of burn time, so if you use the tv for four hours a day, it would last for over 34 years. Izbitzer 10:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
SYCO's 2007 Announcement
"SYCO of China released a 120-inch Laser TV, the biggest in the world so far, and it will be used in cinema in late 2007."
The citation for that is a broken link. I found an archive of the page. It's in Chinese. So I ran it through Google translate: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20070713220756%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sycolaser.com.cn%2Fnews%2F20070525.htm&langpair=zh%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools
No-where on that page does it say that "it will be used in cinema in late 2007". 188.8.131.52 03:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Guys, stop talking about this [...] Why anyone can wrote about the technology of showing the image? Give me real article, not the product-placement of "laserTV" I think, that these TVs have only the name of lasers, just for marketing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you think this article has no quality, you can mark is as a stub or as low importance. However, when you think the claims of TV manufacturers aren't real,you can contact them. Wikipedia has got nothing to do with the TV manufacturers.
People keep confusing color gamut and spectrum. Laser TVs can't reproduce "90% of the spectrum", they can only reproduce three pure spectral colors--those of each laser. They probably have a larger gamut than standard TVs, although I doubt that it's 90%. Note that in order to approach a 100% gamut, you need many more than three light sources. Jcarnelian (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the reference to the problems of forcing 8bit colour to 12 bit. Its perfectly possible to do, that's how Digital intermediary works to a lesser extent. colour Look up tables have been around for ages and allow not only the display of 8bit colour on 12 bit displays and vice versa, you can comfortably convert between linear on logarithmic colour spaces, yes its not as accurate, but its certainly not "un watchable" black magic, avid filmlight even adobe use LUTs to aproxomate colour display. (220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC))
- Don't forget that these are all marketing facts written by people paid to write marketing facts. If the display can reproduce three times the shades of red that a human eye can see, but absolutely no blue or green, this would probably be 100% gamut. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Launch Date Announced
Courtesy of Electronista http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/04/07/mitsu.laservue.and.dlp.lcd/ I'd add it, but I have no time. CyaDarkƒire (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Rewriting the advantages/drawbacks section a bit
These sections are really badly-written. Some of it's point form, some of it's sentences, and these sometimes are even repeating each other. I've edited it to be more clear and consistent, and also added a significant point to each section: burn in (advantage) and color gamut conversion (disadvantage). Both of these are well-known facts but I don't have sources. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
LaserVue L75-A91: http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/product/L75A91
I agree with the idea of merging this article with Laser video projector as User:Lee_Carre requested. In my opinion there is not enough substantial information to justify 2 articles. I would suggest that this article should be incorporated into the Laser video projector one. Alexander ktn (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree also. The technology is the same, the article should be the same. --Rnbc (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I too agree that these articles should be merged. -- Iamdjohn (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The two technologies are not mutually exclusive or too different to warrant two separate articles. In my opinion it is actually misleading to have 2 separate articles.