Why are LCD/Plamas so costly ?

[KonfuSed]

hi, the gap is closing remember when cd introduced only ultra rich could efford! then came vcd player at 40k every six months price came down like 5k and in india a company called Pagaria screwedup all these so called biggys ?? Pagaria sold vcd players starting 3,500/-(its chinese assembled) and sony was selling it for 20k or 30k?? sony sells their dvd player for 3k now. Same way even Crt prices were brought down by Akai they sold 29"" tvs for 19K when sony was selling them for 35k?? Mobiles were rich mans property 7yrs back Ambanis screwd all the mobile companys by selling a handset for Rs 500/- now mobiles r sold in footpaths. LCD r in the moon now just wait they will come down to earth:yahoo:

Hmmm I had a Pagaria and I must say it was one piece of crap that I've ever owned(oh got a imitation iPod too, another big mistake and 2.5k down the drain) and that too only for 6 months. It gave up just after 6 months of service. So what to do with that piece, well, donated it to my house-maid, may be her kids can play with it.
But anyway, the picture is not excactly what you portraying it to be. VCD's prices come down as it has to make way for a better quality format i.e DVD. Now DVD prices are crashing down as another better quality one is replacing it, i.e. Blu-Ray. May be down the line after 4-5 years another Red-ray or Green-ray will replace the blu-ray with 6000p resolution. This cycle will keep on repeating. No, Sony or Philips or whoever hasn't reduced the prices because they got scared by Pagaria, but it was the life of the product that come to an end. Similarly CRT is coming down cause of LCD boom. LCD will come down once LED will become the norm. Similar cycle and will keep repeating it. But the question is whether one wants to enjoy the best when it's at the peak or buy it when it's dying and again sulking about the price of the new better and albeit pricier format.
The initial prices will be higher anyway as they'ld like to reach break-even soon to survive. Once they reach break-even they can start reducing the price. More it's sold lesser the price will be. That's simple market dynamics.

BTW, let me make it clear that I also think that pricing in India are higher than outside world but the reason for it is not what you are portraying it to be.

 

[BLASTO]

hi, the gap is closing remember when cd introduced only ultra rich could efford! then came vcd player at 40k every six months price came down like 5k and in india a company called Pagaria screwedup all these so called biggys ?? Pagaria sold vcd players starting 3,500/-(its chinese assembled) and sony was selling it for 20k or 30k?? sony sells their dvd player for 3k now. Same way even Crt prices were brought down by Akai they sold 29"" tvs for 19K when sony was selling them for 35k?? Mobiles were rich mans property 7yrs back Ambanis screwd all the mobile companys by selling a handset for Rs 500/- now mobiles r sold in footpaths. LCD r in the moon now just wait they will come down to earth:yahoo:

I only feel like you are talking from the moon.. You come down to earth first..


Tell me the logic..

If the chinese company LCDs where to come to the top, somebody has to buy them? Did you buy them? You are simply waiting thinking that these chinese LCDs will make the big manaufacturers to reduce prices so that YOU CAN BUY FROM THE BIG MANUFACTURER..

If everyone thinks like you, no one is going to buy the chinese LCDs? If no one buys the chinese LCDs, the company will become bankrupt? How then are these companies a threat to the big guys?

Your argument makes sense only if you buy the chinese LCDs.. Buy that and you can comment..

 

[nirrej]

hey nirrej, all video is made of sequences of frames, which are akin to still pictures, so i don't know how you can refer to the technieque you described as "cheating"....how is this cheating? how does this unfairly portray the 42" LCD in a superior light as opposed to (say) playing a high definition 1080p video signal from a blu-ray player? Or would you call playing a high resolution video clip from a blu-ray player also 'cheating' ? it's not cheating to show off the extremes of your product's abilities. This is like saying that while demo-ing a Ferrari, the chappie drove it at 200 km/h on a test track, you can't realistically reach those speeds on Chennai roads, and so it is 'cheating.'

from the very first day motion picures were made, it has consisted of a series of still images. That's not the point. I'm talking about the details in a particular still or clip. The details captured by a professional DSLR cannot be compared to the details captured by a professional movie/video cam. There is a vast difference. In real life when a movie is made nobody has the time or resources to make an entire movie or even a 5 minute song sequence using 100s of DSLRS or better still cameras. It will take a minimum of 6 months to shoot just a song sequence.

There are cars which give a mileage of 35kms/litre when driven by experts in a fuel effieciency contest, wheras in normal driving conditions they give just 10km/l. If a carmaker claims that as the fuel effieciency and puts up an ad will you accept it as fair?

 

[BLASTO]

from the very first day motion picures were made, it has consisted of a series of still images. That's not the point. I'm talking about the details in a particular still or clip. The details captured by a professional DSLR cannot be compared to the details captured by a professional movie/video cam. There is a vast difference. In real life when a movie is made nobody has the time or resources to make an entire movie or even a 5 minute song sequence using 100s of DSLRS or better still cameras. It will take a minimum of 6 months to shoot just a song sequence.

There are cars which give a mileage of 35kms/litre when driven by experts in a fuel effieciency contest, wheras in normal driving conditions they give just 10km/l. If a carmaker claims that as the fuel effieciency and puts up an ad will you accept it as fair?

Well, I dont understand how displaying the capabilities of the TV becomes cheating.

If the person conducting the demo says that you can get this kind of picture through cable, then it is cheating.

It is not fair to attribute the defects in the source to the capabilities of the TV.

What is funny is the fact that these companies selling the TVs when the content that can be watched in these TVs are sooo little currently. Ideally the approach should be to fix it bottom up starting from the creation of source material to better encoding to better transmission and then talk about the HD TVs which are the last links. It happened almost the same way in the US. Since we bring in everything that is US, we accepted these TVs also.. No questions asked about the content viewable on these TVs. Very very minimal local movie content available in stores in HD format etc. It is unfair to blame the TV manufaturers as cheaters for the fault which is mostly ours.

Again, If people are buying these TVs paying exotic amounts without knowing that their cable reception cannot be improved anymore by these TVs (The problem being elsewhere), I would blame the people for their lack of enquiry skills before plunging in and grabbing a flat pael.. To say it in your terms, The first question someone asks when purchasing a car is "Average Kya Hai?", why cant these same people ask whether these TVs can play cable as well as their CRTs when buying? I mean how much effort does it take to ask the store guy to play DTH? There after the buying decision is entirely on their hands?

Nobody cheats anybody, people get cheated themselves for not asking the right questions before making an investment. This is not uncommon in other areas also..

 

[venkatcr]

There is a vast difference. In real life when a movie is made nobody has the time or resources to make an entire movie or even a 5 minute song sequence using 100s of DSLRS or better still cameras. It will take a minimum of 6 months to shoot just a song sequence.

But that is exactly what a movie camera does. It takes a series of still images at 24 frames per second. Nobody has to do anything. And believe me, the camera and lens system used in professional movie cameras will make a professional still camera weep with frustration. These are some cameras that can go to 6000P and most cross 2000P. And in studios, movie cameras are always given ideal lighting conditions.

And dance sequences do take time. But that is not because of any technical flaw in the cameras. It is because the dance master does not like a step of your favourite heroine and wants to make her sweat again.

I was once asking a professional wildlife photographer how his photos are always so good. He confessed that many times, it is by pure chance. He just uses a fast action camera and burns hundreds of reels for a just a few good snaps. Nowadays they just a fill a digital drive.

In movies, it is called re-take.

Cheers

 

[changappa]

dude that is utter and total bullshit. a 46" LCD consumes roughly 200-250 watts. Why is it that you've joined this forum and are making broad sweeping statements and demonstrating to the world that you know nothing of what you speak?

hey. what Rajan says I think thats true!! Recently I was going through Plasma OR LCD /LED there too I saw somethig like a 42"" LCD Consumes near440W and Plasma 480W I was bafled, even in US house holds power consumption increased considerably after the introduction of flat pannels. The difference between led and lcd is only the backlight in LCD its CFL in LED its LED behind the pannel. which gives better life and slightly better picture quality and Priced u know it???

 

[adder]

hey. what Rajan says I think thats true!! Recently I was going through Plasma OR LCD /LED there too I saw somethig like a 42"" LCD Consumes near440W and Plasma 480W I was bafled, even in US house holds power consumption increased considerably after the introduction of flat pannels. The difference between led and lcd is only the backlight in LCD its CFL in LED its LED behind the pannel. which gives better life and slightly better picture quality and Priced u know it???

well u may have read a old article,a 42" lcd today consumes only about 170watts or less.while LED lcd consumes less then 90watts.
a plasma of 08 consumed 480watts,but todays plasma are bit more efficient less then 400watts.

 

[adder]

But that is exactly what a movie camera does. It takes a series of still images at 24 frames per second. Nobody has to do anything. And believe me, the camera and lens system used in professional movie cameras will make a professional still camera weep with frustration. These are some cameras that can go to 6000P and most cross 2000P. And in studios, movie cameras are always given ideal lighting conditions.

exactly a professional movie camera will beat the crap out of the DSLRs,when it comes to taking movies.

 

[psychotropic]

er yes, chengappa, we know about LED backlighting, we're not idiots here. And the power consumption figures you have are probably from 5 years back, are you and rajanravi the same person? That's the only way I can see anyone agreeing with this troll.

hey. what Rajan says I think thats true!! Recently I was going through Plasma OR LCD /LED there too I saw somethig like a 42"" LCD Consumes near440W and Plasma 480W I was bafled, even in US house holds power consumption increased considerably after the introduction of flat pannels. The difference between led and lcd is only the backlight in LCD its CFL in LED its LED behind the pannel. which gives better life and slightly better picture quality and Priced u know it???

 

[nirrej]

But that is exactly what a movie camera does. It takes a series of still images at 24 frames per second. Nobody has to do anything. And believe me, the camera and lens system used in professional movie cameras will make a professional still camera weep with frustration. These are some cameras that can go to 6000P and most cross 2000P. And in studios, movie cameras are always given ideal lighting conditions.

Cheers

No movie camera even the latest ones developed by Arri or any other top maufacturer can come near a professional digital camera, in terms of detail. The lowest rung among Professional still cameras is DSLR. Medium format cameras are the next level and then the Large format cameras which are used in studios for fashion shoots, food shots, etc
If as you said, a movie camera captures as much detail as a DSLR or better, then all you have to do is extract a frame from the movie clip and use it for reproduction in posters and hoardings and the breed of people called still photographers would have become extinct by now.

There are many factors responsible for still cameras giving better results.
I'm listing a couple in that particuar instance.
1. The clip i saw in the LCD TV demo was an action shot.
If taken in a movie camera you got to use a Zoom lens to capture sporting action. A zoom lens in far inferior to a fixed focus lens. Thats the way optics is. But those still cameras used a fixed focus lens and captures much more detail.
2. It was a slow motion clip.
There are 2 ways to show slow motion. One is play the clip slowly like the VCRs and DVD players do. It reduces the smoothness vastly and you get a jerky picture.
The other way is to shoot the clip at say 60fps and play back at the usual 24 fps. Now if a the movie camera has to shoot at 60fps its shutterspeed increases and that reduces the details being captured. Wheras in the technique i mentioned the still camera captures at normal shutter speed and hence more details were captured.

Eventhough as you said digital movie cameras capture at 2000P (which means it is around 4mega pixels)and better, they are no way near the capabilities of a still camera. professional Still cameras capture at 25MP or more and also the sensors they use are almost double the size. Sensors play a very vital role..that is the reason why a commercial digicam even though has 12Mp it produces images with lesser quality than a old DSLR which has just 5MP.. and of course the lenses used play the major role.

here is a link to a clip made using still photographs.
Kerli

It has been shot by an amateur.(click the bigger version in quick time)It plays at just 8 fps. After seeing it imagine how much detail a professionaly shot clip(with still images) will have if played at 24fps.

If what i've said about the capabilities of a still camera are not convincing you can ask your photographer friend whether i'm right or wrong. Even DSLRs have HD movie making capability. they shoot at 30fps but the result is poor. similarly movie cameras dont produce convincing details required for still photography.

 

[hemantwaghe]

hey. what Rajan says I think thats true!! Recently I was going through Plasma OR LCD /LED there too I saw somethig like a 42"" LCD Consumes near440W and Plasma 480W I was bafled, even in US house holds power consumption increased considerably after the introduction of flat pannels. The difference between led and lcd is only the backlight in LCD its CFL in LED its LED behind the pannel. which gives better life and slightly better picture quality and Priced u know it???

From where you got these figures? Can you nlighten us with source please?