Talk:Laser TV

Encyclopedic Tone
The last three sections (Development status, Prospect, Technical challenges) read like an executive summary from a Mainland Chinese tech company. Some of this information could be useful, but it should be have its grammar cleaned up and written in an encyclopedic tone. Bits that are irrelevant or trite should be removed entirely. There's a lot of editorializing. Those sections can be cleaned up assuming the underlying information is useful.

Examples:
-2hip2carebear (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "In order to further accelerate the industrialization of laser display, the China Ministry of Science and Technology in the "engineering development of new generation laser display technology" is clearly identified as one of the eight major industrial development direction, this indicates the direction of independent innovation for China in this emerging high-tech industry"
 * "On the other hand, due to the size and technology, semiconductor light source technology in China needs to be further improved."
 * "Laser TV must continue to develop and maintain a competitive advantage in order to occupy a leading market position for a long time."

Contradictions
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:

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/Industry?Article=/TVs%20And%20Large%20Display/Industry/R7J2X7Q3 http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/Industry?Article=/TVs%20And%20Large%20Display/Industry/G3C2K6L4

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 70.126.213.227 (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)


 * The exact technology being used probably hasn't even existed for 5.7 years... The estimates are probably not even worth listing, or should at least be very clearly marked as being estimates rather than anything to do with reality. 93.182.133.11 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2009 (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". 81.6.217.53 03:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

what's about?
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 91.76.63.157 (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.

color gamut
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. (193.203.83.22 (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. 93.182.133.11 (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. 93.182.133.11 (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

LaserVue L75-A91
LaserVue L75-A91: http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/product/L75A91

Merge request
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 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.
 * I agree also. The technology is the same, the article should be the same. --Rnbc (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Laser video projector begins the article discussing the technology and has a sub-section of applications.
 * Laser video display begins the article discussing the applications / products with a sub-section of technology.

This article does not cover recent laser video projection implementations gaining favor over raster scan.
In particular, the article seems to be focused more or less exclusively on direct-raster-scan implementations where the laser beam(s) are swept at high speed across the image field and modulated in brightness so as to produce the image directly.

There are newer implementations that appear to be coming to market (e.g. the Epson LS10000 and LS9600e, NEC's line, or Sony VPL-FHZ55) which use one or more lasers (either individual R/G/B, or as in the Epson, two blue lasers where one passes through a phosphor wheel so as to produce yellow, which is then further split into red and green illumination sources), and where the laser(s) act as a replacement for more common LED or UHP illumination sources of LCoS/D-ILA style imaging chips. This is a fundamentally different mechanism from the raster scan technique, as the benefits of increased available color gamut are made practical, while still taking advantage of mature image creation/brightness modulation technologies like LCoS.

As this seems to be a technique also finding favor in digital cinema commercial projectors, and the direct-laser-scan style of video devices discussed in the present article seem to not making significant inroads in commercial acceptance, perhaps the article should take a different focus, or least give some equal discussion time to the newer architecture discussed here. Andrewsi (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Laser video display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/006226.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laser video display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908002858/http://bitstream.soundandvisionmag.com/blog/2008/09/mitsubishi-anno.html to http://bitstream.soundandvisionmag.com/blog/2008/09/mitsubishi-anno.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Laser video display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118004403/http://www.insightmedia.info/reportinfo.php?2006laser to http://www.insightmedia.info/reportinfo.php?2006laser
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406010122/http://displaydaily.com/2006/02/16/mitsubishi-joins-the-laser-tv-club/ to http://displaydaily.com/2006/02/16/mitsubishi-joins-the-laser-tv-club/
 * Added tag to http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/img/679633/Mitsubishi%20Digital%20Electronics%20America,%20Inc.%20Announces%20Screen%20Sizes%20forLaserVue%E2%84%A2%20Laser%20TV%20Shipping%20in%20Third%20Quarter%202008PressRelease.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828235638/http://laservuetv.com/faq.php to http://www.laservuetv.com/faq.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification
I thought this TV had LASERs in it. Maybe that should be more clear in the article. 79.106.209.51 (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)