SeanTech

Hitachi Launches Mysterious Ultra Thin TVs

Technology so amazing, they can’t even explain it

Oh you poor saps with five-inch think LCD TVs. Hitachi put them to shame today with its new 1.5-inch “Ultra Thin” line of panels.

The secret to that slim figure is in the backlight behind that panel. And that secret, for now, is remaining a secret. On a conference call from Japan today, Hitachi representatives would say only that it uses an “external electrode fluorescent light,” as opposed to the fluorescent tubes behind a regular LCD. What exactly this new term means was left to the imagination. But Hitachi did say that the TV requires a special LCD panel with “a conductive material fused into glass.” So the best guess for now is that the panel creates an electrical field around a container of gas to make it glow – as opposed to having electrodes inside a glass tube.

In addition to making the TVs thinner, Hitachi says that the new backlight technology extends the lifetime of the sets and makes them more energy efficient. It also improves color on the screen, expanding it to beyond what the HDTV standards require and especially improving reds, said a Hitachi spokesperson

The Ultra Thin TVs will be available in 2008 in screen sizes of 32, 37, and 42 inches. They are not the same as the sooper-dooper ultra thin TVs that Hitachi showed off at CEATEC in Japan earlier this month. Those waifs measure only 0.75 inches and are scheduled to appear in 2009. Hitachi is saying even less about how those sets work, but some industry experts suspect that Hitachi uses light-emitting diodes for the backlight.

Hitachi didn’t specify exactly how much any of the Ultra Thin sets will cost. But Kevin Sullivan, the senior vice president of sales, said “It will definitely be a high-priced product” targeted at “highly affluent” customers who “seek luxury, prestige and style.” The 32-inch panel will be available in 2008, followed by the 37- and 42-inch models around mid year. All will debut under Hitachi’s Director Series line of premium products sold in specialty A/V shops and by high-priced custom installers, but Hitachi plans to offer the technology in more mainstream products later on.—Sean Captain

Burning Question: Do A/V Cables Matter?

More Wired outtakes -- this one from the Test special issue of October. Imagine how thick the magazine would be if they publisehd all the articles they comissioned...

After shelling out for a TV, DVD player, amplifier, and speakers, you still need a mess of cables to hook them together. And that can get expensive. "Cables are considered accessories, and they have a high markup," said Rich Sulin, who heads audio/video equipment testing for Consumer Reports.

Take for example the HDMI cable that carries digital video and audio signals to a television. A one-meter length from Monster Cable retails for $200 -- as much as a high-quality DVD player.

Is a wire really worth that much? The experts we talked to emphatically said "No!"

That's especially true for digital cables. "As soon as it's digital, you buy the cheaper one," said Pavel Zivny, a product engineer at Tektronix who designs oscilloscopes for testing high-frequency signaling equipment.

The beauty of digital signals is their resiliency. Analog cables carry precise signal values, and the slightest degradation changes the information -- possibly resulting in blurriness on TV screens or messed-up notes in speakers. Digital carries only two pieces of information -- ones and zeros. The signal can take a pretty good beating, but the device at the other end can still easily tell the difference. And there are no gray areas between a good and bad digital connection. "You either are getting information and it works fine, or it is broken," said Zivny.

So for a high-quality, low-cost connection, go digital. Depending on your specific equipment, that means HDMI or DVI cables for video gear and optical or digital coaxial cables for audio components. To find bargains, Rich Sulin recommends skipping over big-name cable displays in the front of an electronics store and looking in the back where the cheap brands are hidden. You can also find deals online from companies at sites like Amazon.com.

If you can't afford to upgrade your components to digital, you shouldn't be blowing cash on fancy analog cables, either. Fortunately, though analog cables vary in quality, the differences are not huge. Pavel Zivny recommends basic guidelines for buying a decent analog cable. Look for one with a thick plastic or rubber coating that prevents it from easily crimping, since that can distort the signal. And if you can find information about the metal shielding inside the cable, look for one with a tightly woven, braided layer. A double layer is especially good.

One component that must have an analog connection is the speaker. And you can really save money on these cables. "As long as they're low enough resistance, you'll be fine," said Rich Sulin. That simply means getting thick copper wires that let the signals travel unimpeded.

For buying speaker wire, Sulin and Zivny recommend bypassing the home-theater and electronics shops and heading to stores like Home Depot where you can cut the length of double-strand cable you need from big spools. The thickness, or gauge, of copper you need depends on the length of the cable running to each speaker. According to Zivny's calculations, a 15-foot cable run requires 14-gauge wire, a 25-foot run requires 12 gauge, and 40 feet requires 10 guage. Remember: Smaller gauge numbers correspond to thicker wires.

Hot New Cameras - Outtakes from Wired

I wrote the cameras section for the Tools feature in Wired's upcoming December issue. As often happens, we had more material than pages to print it on. Here are some cool-looking new cameras that just didn't fit. Unlike with most articles in Wired, Tools items haven't been tested. (We write about them before they come out in most cases.) So I can't say for certain how good these cameras are, but they do look promising.

Compact Cameras

Little shooters are getting big powers these days. Sadly, camera-makers are still stuck in a megapixel pissing contest. But other growing numbers -- like ISO ratings for light sensitivity -- really will help you take better pictures in more places.

Fujifim Sticks to its Resolution

Fujifilm's latest ultraskinny resists the peer pressure to add ever-more useless megapixels. While rivals are cramming seven million photodiodes onto a miniscule 7.1-millimeter sensor, the Z3 sticks with a perfectly useful 5.1 million. That leaves room for bigger pixels that capture more light and might even produce clean images at the camera's ISO 1600 maximum light sensitivity. Despite its sensible specs, the Z3 is no dowdy digicam. It comes in a yummy pearlescent violet (as well as the industry-standard silver-gray finish). And it measures a sexy 0.8 inches thick all the time -- since the 3X optical zoom lens moves internally rather than popping out the front.

FinePix Z3, $250, www.fujifilmusa.com

Nikon's Little Wonder

Nikon jams the goodies into one slim package. The 7.1-meapixel camera maintains its slender 0.8-inch profile thanks to an internally zooming 3X lens. A three-inch high-res LCD covers the back, and built-in Wi-Fi lets you immediately dispatch photos via email or uploads to Nikon's picture-sharing service. To make connecting easy, Nikon bundles a one-year subscription to T-Mobile's Wi-Fi service, which is available alongside Vente cappuccinos at Starbucks coffee shops. The S7c also packs all Nikon's other clever features, such as face detection for snapping sharp portraits and electronic vibration reduction for processing the blur out of photos taken with a shaky hand.

Coolpix S7c, 379, www.nikonusa.com

Camcorders

OK, stop staring at YouTube and go shoot your own silly videos. With new consumer gear, you can produce slick shows that will make even Paris Hilton and Lonelygirl15 jealous.

Canon's Disc Jockey

There's nothing square about the DC22. Its wide CCD sensor natively captures standard-def videos in the 16:9 format of modern TVs, not the 4:3 box of old tubes (thought 4:3 is an optional setting); and it records them to three-inch DVD discs, not to boxy tapes. The mini DVDs hold up to 36 minutes of top-quality video and work directly in many PC and set-top players for immediately viewing the raw footage, without a trip to the PC editing program. But Canon does include authoring software for making cut and polished DVDs, as well.

DC22 DVD Camcorder, $699, www.usa.canon.com

Sony's HD Jukebox

This is Nirvana: A compact high-definition camcorder with a hard drive that holds hours of footage. The 10X zoom lens funnels light to a new complementary metal-oxide (CMOS) image sensor that Sony claims produces better dynaimic range (shading detail) than the charge-coupled device (CCD) sensors in most camcorders. And built-in microphones capture Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound. With the ability to hold 4 hours of high-def video or 7.5 hours of standard-def fare (at the highest quality levels), the 1.6-pound SR1 is an ultraportable video jukebox that attaches to any TV via the HDMI digital video and audio interface or analog component, S-Video, and stereo connections.

HDR-SR1 AVC HD 30GB Handycam, $1500, www.sonystyle.com

 
Accessories

HP's Zippy Printer

If you think a five-minute microwavable meal takes too long, you'll like the D7360 - which HP claims is the fastest photo printer on the planet. And whether or not it retains the record by the time you read this, 12 seconds is still pretty quick for a 4x6-inch photo print. The D7360 has slots for all major memory card types. And you can make fast photo fixes without a PC -- such as removing red eye and brightening highlights -- by tapping through menus on the printer's 3.4-inch touchscreen LCD. But what you do in seconds could last decades. Prints with HP's Vivera inks and Advanced Photo Paper are rated to last for about 30 years. And according to HP's tests, they even hold up after being dunked in water.

Photosmart D7360, $180, www.shopping.hp.com

Green Tuning

Here's an outtake from a piece I wrote for the New York Times about hacking a car's computer to make the car run faster, cleaner, or both.

MOST modifications are done to speed cars up, not clean them up. But hacks can also improve fuel efficiency for many cars, especially gas-electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius.

Hybrids are gas-powered vehicles that save fuel by extending their internal-combustion engines with electric motors. Onboard computers regulate the interplay of gas and electric power. The electric motor provides some or all of the start-up power at low speeds, for example, when using a gas engine would be inefficient. Electric motors also provide a boost for acceleration. And during deceleration, they function as generators, converting much of the car’s momentum into electricity to recharge the batteries.

But the electric motors can do a lot more, say advocates of so-called “plug-in” hybrids like the California Cars Initiative, or CalCars. By carrying additional batteries, which are plugged in to a wall socket for overnight charging, hybrids can make greater use of the electric motor. In some conditions, they can run solely on electricity for up to a few dozen miles (enough for many commutes and local errands). Electricity is a cheaper power source than gasoline. And pulling power from the grid, instead of from a gas engine, generates only about half as much carbon dioxide per mile, said Felix Kramer, the founder of CalCars.

In the fall of 2004, CalCars converted a Toyota Prius into a plug-in hybrid by installing extra batteries and modifying the car’s computer settings to recognize the new power source and run the car in electric mode as much as possible. Since then, a few commercial plug-in conversion services have emerged. A company called Hymotion, for example, plans to start offering conversions for the Toyota Prius by the end of the year. Prices are high, however: at  $9,500.

CalCars is lobbying hybrid makers like Ford and Toyota to build cars with plug-in abilities, which it estimates would add about $3,000 to the sticker price. “It’s the same as buying an extra feature like leather seats,” Mr. Kramer said. “Millions of people want to buy that environmental feature.” Meanwhile, CalCars is developing a program to help late-model Prius owners do their own plug-in conversions. Technical assistance is free; parts are about $3,000.

Stop the Megapixel Madness!

With this post, I officially declare myself an opponent of camera resolution. What? Oppose resolution? But resolution is inherently good, right? It's like being against ice cream or puppies. Well, what if you’re lactose intolerant? Or the puppy is a rabid pit-bull?

Even good things become bad if taken to excess. And that's why I hate megapixels. We have too damn many of them. Big resolution is a pain for some obvious reasons -- bigger files require bigger, more expensive memory cards and suck up more hard drive space. Yes, yes. I've heard those complaints. But if more megapixels produced better pictures, I wouldn't care about those downsides. Quality is worth paying more.

Here's the problem, though -- more megapixels produce WORSE pictures. Yes, worse. You may have heard or read my rants on this before. But now I have concrete, saddening proof.

Last week I met with folks from Pentax and saw their new K10D digital SLR, which immediately won my heart. Pentax is no Canon or Nikon, but it makes very respectable little SLRs at good prices. If you don't have (realistic) pro aspirations (and most of us don't), Pentax is a great way to go. The K10D has Pentax's cool vibration reduction technology via an image sensor that "floats" in a magnetic field so that camera jiggles don't cause it to move around. (The technology premiered in the K100D and works great, according to my tests.)

But the K10D also has other fantastic features. For the first time, Pentax has attached a name to its image sensor: The Pentax Real IMage Engine. OK, it's a clunky name, but it has a nice acronym -- PRIME -- which undoubtedly came first. Why didn't Pentax name their processors before? Because they weren't THEIR processors. They just bought 'em from a chipmaker. (They wouldn't tell me which one.) One of the coolest things about PRIME is that it takes DDR2 memory. What does that mean? Unlimited shooting. Press the shutter, and the camera keeps taking pictures until the memory card fills up. I'm not certain, but I don't think ANY other camera does this.

Another cool thing -- a very sophisticated analog to digital converter. This takes the gobbledygook from the sensor and makes it into a package of nice ones and zeros for the camera to process. Analog has a virtually infinite range of values, and every time you convert it to nice little ones and zeros, you make some compromises in accuracy. But the K10D doesn't make many. It has a 22-bit converter -- meaning it interprets 2 to the 22nd power shades of meaning. Its previous cameras had a 12-bit converter -- ten orders of magnitude less refined.

There's just one problem with the K10D: Its 10-megapixel sensor. This problem can be measured. In low-light shooting, it makes the K10D only half as good as Pentax's old six megapixel K100D. While the K100D goes to ISO 3200 sensitivity, the K10D can only go to ISO 1600. Pentax confirms that the sensor is the problem. So, new processor, new digital-to-analog converter, and worse low-light performance. That's how much damage comes from trying to squeeze an extra four million photodiodes onto a sensor of the same size. They are so tiny and receive so little light that you need all this new processing power just to get an image that is not quite as good as that from the entry-level camera. Oh, what a shame. So now, I get almost twice as many pixels, but they are fuzzier. So I can make giant prints that look like they are growing mold, or I can hide the fuzz by making prints that are as small as or smaller than those from the 6-megapixel camera.

The K10D certainly has some benefits over the K100D. Speed for sure, and possibly better color processing - which the K100D badly needs on long-exposure shots. (We'll have to wait and see the K10D to know for sure.) But it's so sad that that one of the new camera's "features," the resolution, is actually a drawback.

Cars and Computers: Life Imitating Video Games

Those who know me know that cars are not a big interest of mine. I know how to drive them and rent them sometimes, and I haven't wanted to own one since I was a teenager. But I'm working on an article now about car-hacking -- getting in there and changing the engine computer to make the car faster, or even more fuel-efficient. It's damn interesting!

One of the coolest things I learned about is the huge influence that video games have on the real world. The top game titles, like Gran Turismo, Forza, and Need for Speed are pretty much flight simulators for cars. Not only are the race tracks exact reproductions of real, famous tracks, but the cars are real, too. The game developers work with the car makers to insure that the virtual cars drive and sound just like the real thing.

The cars are so good that people want to buy the real thing. The Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution and the Subaru Impreza WRX STI, for example, weren't originally sold in the

US

, but they were featured in driving games and got so popular in the

US

that Mitsubishi and Subaru decided to start offering the cars over here.

The latest development --not just simulating how the stock cars work but how they work after you soup them up. Game-makers are now working with aftermarket parts manufacturers and tuners so they can simulate how different parts, or even engine tuning, will make the virtual cars run. I got this info from David Vespremi - a car fanatic and author of the book Car Hacks and Mods for Dummies. "It's almost as if I'm test-driving both the car and the modifications in the game," he said.

And aftermarket companies are buying lots of adds in driving games, said David, who does marketing for an air-filter supplier.

Avid believe that video games, not flicks like The Fast and Furious, are what stoked popular interest in car modding and racing. "You have this whole generation of kids tinkering with cars in games, and when they get a real car, it seems natural."

Why I might not buy the new Canon Digital Rebel

On August 24, Canon announced a new version of its always-stellar Digital Rebel SLR, the Rebel XTi. In a lot of ways, it looks great: 10-megapixel resolution, 2.5-inch LCD, and a supersonic vibrating image sensor to shake off picture-ruining dust particles. (Plus an algorithm to remove artifacts from dust blobs that don't shake off.) These are all great, and they certainly make the new Rebel better than its predecessor. But not that much better.

Ten megapixels is simply overkill. It's just more data to hog up hard drives. The 8-megapixel Rebel XT is already a stellar camera. According to pro photog Mark Rutherford:

The EOS Rebel has identical image quality to the 20/30D. Which is virtually identical to the $30K medium-format backs up to letter size or more. Rebel truly is the outstanding value on the market.

So why not just snap up a current XT at the significant discount that will likely be coming from stores once the XTi is out?

The counterargument to that would be: Why settle for good technology, when you can get the very best? Well, if you are looking for the absolute cutting edge, remember this: New Rebels tend to come out in late summer, followed by semipro models in Canon's XXD line (20D, 30D) in the late fall or Winter.

The next model (40D?) is obviously going to have all the features of the new Rebel, plus at least one extra killer feature. What could that be? I don't know -- even under NDA. But here's a theory: Canon's DigicII processor -- the superfast brains of it camera -- is getting old. And the competition has recently been revving up its processors. (Sony put a new processor in the Alpha A100 SLR. And Panasonic just introduced a whole line of cameras with its new Venus Engine 3 chip.)

And Canon's photo processing, though pretty good, could use an upgrade. Shooting speed is great, and pixel noise is very minor. But color is still funky (to warm) -- especially with automatic white balance. And the on-screen menus are a usability disaster.

Is a DigicIII slated for a theoretical-but-almost-guaranteed 40D release late this year or early next? I suggest waiting to see.

EZ Takes Speaks on Rights Management

In my recent Slate article about downloadable DVDs, I had room to give only a brief mention to the copy-protection measures used by EZTakes, saying it "offers virtually no safeguards against piracy." Jim Flynn, the CEO of EZTakes, rightly points out that EZTakes does provide more safeguards than a DVD you would get in a store. Specifically:

We've invested a fortune developing technology that marks DVD images with the identity of the purchasing consumer in several ways and also links the content back to the original credit card. Someone can make a copy (as they can any commercial DVD), but a copy of an EZTake DVD will be traceable. A sane pirate would pay cash at Wal-Mart and then use one of many free, downloadable decrypters to make a 100% untraceable copy.

That actually is a clever, unobtrusive mechanism. What I should have said in my essay was that it was not a draconian enough copy protection measure to satisfy the studios. That also explains my statement in the essay that we need a system with digital rights management to make online movie-distribution work. I'm not so sure we really need that in order to adequately suppress piracy, but we sure do need it in order to get Hollywood to play along. And it looks like they are warming up to expanded DVD downloading, according to this c/net article.

Jim offers an interesting argument on why more copy-protection matters aren't needed, or even useful. It's worth considering:

Technology vendors are always looking for a way to lock out competition. That's why, for example, the only way you'll get a copy-protected movie on an iPod is if you buy it  from iTunes. For the foreseable future, there is no way that Apple will support Windows DRM, nor will they open up Fairplay so that other services can compete with their iTunes store. In general, the strongest tech vendor on any one platform will always do everything to make sure that their DRM does not work with anyone else's.

Bootleg DVDs are available months before movies are released to theaters. HBO specials are available for download hours before they air on the West Coast and just about every marketable film on Movielink and CinemaNow is available on Bittorrent as a free illegal download. Given that, just how is copy protection imposed on paying customers going to benefit anyone but the technology provider? It won't. It might stop Aunt Millie from making a copy for Aunt Mabel, but it doesn't stop the massive pirates, who are the ones that do the economic damage. And when something is on DVD, even Aunt Millie can copy it. In fact, you could train a monkey to decrypt just about any commercial DVD. The only sane way to fight piracy is to provide value and  convenience to paying customers, not make them wait 4 hours for a low-quality, twice-transcoded movie without a backup option, all in order to impose futile copy protection on those paying customers.