P3D Re: LCD's vs. Chrome's

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Vincent Chan <v7chan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>"Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Anything developed for video will never, in our lifetime, achieve the
>>image quality of a good film transparency.
>
>Don't know how long you plan to be living, but "never" seems rather
definate.


The key word above is "video".

I've probably got another 30-40 years left.  It took that span for
television to evolve from NTSC standard to (maybe eventually, hasn't
happened yet) HDTV standard.  Do you know how far TV would have to
progress to match a film transparency?  We're talking motion picture
quality there.

>>Current state-of-the-art video technology
>>achieves more like 640x480, your average television maybe half that on
a
>>good day.
>
>With the new CMOS technology, we can now get 1280x1024 digital still
>cameras for under $250.  Which is a far cry from the >$1000 prices for
CCD
>cameras just a couple of years ago.


I'm talking about VIDEO technology, as in TELEVISION.  Not digital
stills.  Digital is way ahead of television.

>Current state-of-the-art technology, you can get S-VGA resolution
glasses
>that use LED's (millions on a tiny chip wafer, cheaper than LCD
technology)
>to actually project the image onto the back of the retina.  (kind of
scary)
> Of course, the only people who can afford this right now is the
military
>and large companies, but its only time before we see this widely
available.


And how long before it evolves to "motion picture" quality?  I'll bet
I'm dead by then. :-)

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)