LaCie's new LCDs put NTSC to shame
By Tim Stevens 
posted Sep 10th 2008 10:10AM
posted Sep 10th 2008 10:10AM
posted Sep 10th 2008 10:10AM
The percentage of sales people that recommend Samsung HDTVs.
Salespeople are also becoming less likely to recommend LCD sets over plasma sets, which goes against the industry trend.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
what's a UBS hub?
well thing about it for the 730 thats just over a tenth of a penny per pixel! thats nothing!
*think
1000:1 contrast? Are you sure?
1000:1 sounds correct, and it is actually perfectly fine.
Contrast is a hyped up parameter that actually has relatively little impact on user experience: under normal circumstances, the human eye can only discern contrast to about 800:1 or so, thus anything more is undetectable anyway.
Here is a great article on what contract actually implies: http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/contrast-ratio.html
Please, I dont normally comment on here because its full of clowns but I have to interject here.
contrast is one of the most important image qualties, more so than resoloution.
Saying 1000:1 is enough is a joke, I cant watch films on my LCD any more because its so hard to see what is going on in dark scenes.
Please try to watch The Assignation of Jessy James on an LCD, its a joke. I now use my CRT to watch movies and will continue to do so until OLED or whatever sorts the contrast out. I am not impressed enough by the new Kuros to pay for one.
You must work for Philips?
Paul you are an idiot,
These displays are for graphic users and for us that means contrast is the last thing on our minds!!! You want to watch the ASSASSINATION of Jessy James then buy and LCD TV.
I agree with paul, the proof is in the pudding, they made strides in contrast ratios and now suddenly the last few weeks there's tons of stuff with old contrast ratios from before they started using dynamic contrast and LED backlighting, both of which these offerings don't seem to have then, it's like travelling back in time (including the prices).
Next week we'll see huge heavy CRT's with trinitron being released I guess, then it's over to black & white and 12" and rounded tubes.
Since when "4:3 1600 x 1200" is "pathetic"? It's UXGA resolution and is the standard for 20" monitors.
Besides, higher resolutions on such a small monitor will only make text and interfaces smaller and harder to see, which for a "pro" user are not necessarily "pro"s.
For the price, it IS pathetic, never mind it being standard for that native screen size.
Ah yes. I love going blind as I read websites.
It's a joke, you nimrod. There's a 30", 24", and finally the 20" with it's "pathetic" resolution. Humor, you see? They are calling it pathetic as the other two monitors have much greater resolutions, even though 1600x1200 is really quite high! Haha, humor, funny stuff! Lots of that snarky stuff can be found here at Engadget. Lots more can be found by going outside more often.
im just gunna go out there and comment on the comment system being one of the worst iv ever experienced here at engadget
Whats up with the commenting system? It works fine.
You must be new here. Wait...
Tom Robertson
Member Since Jun 23rd, 2008
Yeah, that explains it. Although it's been over two months now, so you must have a superhuman resistance to "fail."
Whats up with the commenting system? It works fine.
How ironic :P
Can someone explain how you can represent more than 100% of the NTSC gamut, let alone 100% of anything? Did I miss something when my teacher said "you can't put in more than 100%" or have I just been underachieving my entire life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut
The NTSC gamut doesn't cover the total spectrum of what is perceivable or reproducible, so representing over 100% of the gamut is totally possible. Think of it like saying I have more than 100% of your 4 apples.
It's possible to be over 100% of the NTSC gamut because the NTSC isn't 100% of all the colors in the visible spectrum.
1600 x 1200 pathetic? You do realise thats actually a better pixel density than the 24" screen and only slightly worse than the 30" one right? I'd hardly call that pathetic, more like bang on what you'd expect for a pc monitor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch#Common_dot_pitches_in_monitors
Who wants to hear my "why more than 100% of the gamut is bullshit" tirade again?
...anybody? Hello?
I believe you, most of the specs on most consumer electronics are bullshit construed to attract the ignorant buyer.
Sadly the unscientific masses don't realise that 100% is the top limit in a scale of 0 - 100 [% percentile by definition]
Give it to me! Is your argument/tirade that they can't actually show that, or are you saying it doesn't matter?
For graphics work, this is extremely important. The wider the color spectrum the better. This has long been the downfall of LCD screens, the very reason you can still see CRT monitors on some graphic designer's desks.
@Major4Play
Exactly.
Bring it on! Let's hear this argument...
Then we can have a math class and a class on colorimetry to set the record straight.
NB
@nbonini
Alright... I say that having more than 100% of a color gamut is total bullshit. This is because you can't display more than 100% of the colors in a gamut.
For instance, let's say there's a Cheese Gamut. There are 10 colors in the Cheese Gamut. If you display those 10 colors and another 11th color, you are not displaying 110% of the colors in the Cheese Gamut, you are displaying 100% of the colors in it, and then some other color from elsewhere. You can't display 110% of something! It's impossible and stupid and the terminology needs a serious overhaul.
See what you're failing to understand is that the NTSC Gamut doesn't include all of the colors in the visible spectrum. If the monitor can display more than colors than the NTSC Gamut, then that can easily be expressed using a Percentage, and its very appropriate to express that as a number greater than 100% of the NTSC Gamut.
I didn't feel like taking the time to find a chart that showed the NTSC gamut but here is a chart that compares several others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Colorspace.png
Looking at this chart wouldn't it be fair to say that the "Pro Photo" Gamut has more than 100% of the colors of the sRGB Gamut?
Nice title but NTSC colour gamut is not really factually correct. NTSC uses YUV colour which is also used in PAL (UK,AUS,Europe TV standard)
YUV is also used in MPEG and JPEG.
NTSC [National TV Standards Committee] As the name suggests is a TV standard so doesn't really apply to monitors.
NTSC gamut is still a standard that can be applied outside of TVs. It's just a measurement of the color spectrum. You could apply it to a printed photo if you wanted to.
These are rebadged Samsung XL-series monitors, complete with LaCie's markup.
link?
Wide gamut is only marketing!
In Blu-ray, only SMPTE-C gamut at 90% is used (and 10% of EBU gamut).
More info here (in french) :
http://hdsoir.blogspot.com/2008/09/le-gamut.html
Why NTSC?!? Why not the full 709 color gamut for HD? For the price, you could get a pro monitor without HDSDI. If you are really concerned about color and video, you should be able to calibrate to 709 color space.
The panel would only be 8 or 10 bit anyway. I am not aware of anyone making panels more than 10-bit in the consumer space.
If you read this far, you might be wonder what's the point? I ask myself the same question...
NB
Sony just released notebooks with RGB LED backlight that do full-HD and 100% adobe colorspace suitable for photographers in 16:9, that's more like it, 'cept that I hate sony, but oh well, point is that others can follow and stop walking backwards.
Model Vaio VGN-AW11XU btw, about $4K though, but meh, get your boss to pay it.
Why the high price w/ no LED backlight?
Go with an NEC, SamsungXL or Eizo instead.
Um... I have an LG 19" display that I payed $250 for and it does just fine, looks beautiful. Why on earth would anyone pay over $1,000 for a non 3d monitor?
Perhaps they work better with your monster-cables?
how is this 30" display different from Samsung Syncmaster 305T which is available at about 1000€ for at least a year now?