A question about TV and resolution

[Reznor007]

Can't say I agree with this. Compared to fast reaction time 6-bit per channel LCD panels I guess you're right, but these don't seem to be used in TVs anyway. Compared to proper 8-bit per channel panels, CRTs have no advantage at all from what I as a layperson have seen, and that's likely the case with most other people as well. Plasmas have AFAIK even better colors and certainly much greater contrast than LCDs. I've seen plasmas with advertised contrast ratios of 8000:1 (10x of a good LCD), this should be far greater than any CRT.

8000:1 huh? How's this CRT?
http://www.hometheatermag.com/directviewandplasmatvs/105toshiba/index2.html

A full-field 100-IRE white was 15.32 foot-lamberts, but a full-field 0-IRE black was too dark to measure. This means the contrast ratio was at least 15,320:1 (using 0.001, the lowest that our LS-100 can measure, as the base); in reality, though, the contrast ratio is much higher. Using a 16-box checkerboard pattern (ANSI contrast), the contrast ratio was 135:1.—GM

As they don't have a native format they can show pretty much any res, though due to the analog nature and the fixed, finite resolution of the phosphor dots of the screen, they get blurrier the higher res you show on them. Limited video bandwidth of the analog components also means refresh rate goes down as screen res goes up, with the risk of flicker appearing. I'll take the pin-sharp and flicker-free image of a fixed pixel device at native res any day of the week over that.

All the crap, you say? What about geometry distortion (pincushion, bowing, etc), poor convergence in some corner, bad focus in another, having to manually trim the display so each resolution fits the screen (and having it shift as the unit heats up), moire patterns appearing in certain imagery, etc... It's not as if CRTs are exactly problem free, you know.

Large-screen CRTs also are very heavy, burns a lot of power, are very bulky, and so on. Comes with being based on nineteenth-century tech. I've lived with CRT monitors for 10+ years using various computers and I'm completely fed up with that old shitty technology. CRTs are basically obsolete for 99.9% of the population, if not more.

Most of that can be fixed by adjusting the settings on the TV/monitor. Even convergence is pretty easy to fix(I'm an arcade tech and I work on arcade CRT's frequently). Color-wise, the only displays I've seen that really beat a good CRT are the $15K plasmas, but I don't know if the difference is worth the extra cash over my $200 19" PC CRT monitor. The weight of a display doesn't really matter to me, as if it's a large enough CRT to be very heavy, I'm not going to be moving it much anyway.

I'd much rather scale my displays size to fit properly instead of having it scale itself leaving blocky artifacts. Having 0 dead pixels is a plus too.

PS, whoever decided it was a good idea for fixed pixel devices to commonly be 5:4 and 16:10 should be slapped repeatedly with a large trout.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Well, PERHAPS. If the splitter routes analog signals. Also, x360 doesn't have digital output, so you'd definitely need a splitter that handles analog.

Also, you don't NEED to get dual-link cables as hardly any consumer equipment is dual-link anyway, but are single-link cables really any cheaper? Btw, do a dual-link cable even FIT in a single-link DVI-I/D connector? I'm not sure. Just get a DVI-I single-link cable if you're uncertain, that'll work fine.

Splitter splits one signal to two or more so you can get the same picture in multiple displays, what he needs is a switch, That might sound nitpicking, but switch and splitter are two different things, and it's better to buy the right one .

I'm pretty sure that DVI-I input will eat any kind of DVI-cable.

This site has some useful stuff about DVI
http://www.datapro.net/techinfo/dvi_info.html

 

[MonkeyLicker]

Is it correct to assume that the same loss of resolution will occur when outputting to a VGA monitor as well?

What resolution would a 4:3 monitor need to be to be able to display a true 720p image?

 

[BlueTsunami]

Is it correct to assume that the same loss of resolution will occur when outputting to a VGA monitor as well?

What resolution would a 4:3 monitor need to be to be able to display a true 720p image?

It was stated (I think in another thread) that loss of resolution will occur...basically the image will be forced into Letterbox or span the whole screen. Either way it will be lower than 720..I wonder if you could set it at a higher res that would compansate the for the loss and still get a true 720p image (but in letterbox)

 

[randycat99]

I would calculate a 1280x960 monitor should do the trick.

 

[Reznor007]

I would calculate a 1280x960 monitor should do the trick.

When I watch 720P videos on my PC 1280x960 makes for a perfect resolution since there is no resizing involved.

 

[randycat99]

Mind you, my comment was specifically referring to a monitor that is displaying 1280x960 natively, not just a PC set to output 1280x960 from the videocard. If that is the case with your post, then we are in agreement.

 

[Reznor007]

Yeah, I usually run my monitor at 1280x960(19" Viewsonic CRT), and that works great for watching 720P HD videos I find. No up or downscaling is needed.

 

[DemoCoder]

No, not really since a CRT still has far superior color reproduction and the ability to display multiple resolutions in their "native" format if the Monitor designer chooses to do so

My Philips TV will display 480i/p and 1080i just fine without all of the crap associated with using a fixed resolution display such as a plasma or LCD

False and false. The color gamut of CRTs is inferior to modern Plasma and LCD. Even CRT's vaunted black level superiority is a myth when you compare ANSI contrast ratios (instead of On/Off Contrast Ratio BS) Most CRTs in fact, have a fluctuating black level, so that when something is shown on the screen besides dark colors, the DC voltage doesn't restore back to zero properly, and the black level gets pushed up.

Secondly, your phillips TV cannot display 1080i. 1080i requires the ability to resolve 1920 horizontal lines per scan line. No CRT in existence can come close to this. Your CRT scales 1080i images just like 720P fixed displays, the only difference is, the scaling is done by inferior noisy analog circuits and a crappy phosphor grid.

 

[DemoCoder]

8000:1 huh? How's this CRT?
http://www.hometheatermag.com/directviewandplasmatvs/105toshiba/index2.html

This means the contrast ratio was at least 15,320:1 (using 0.001, the lowest that our LS-100 can measure, as the base); in reality, though, the contrast ratio is much higher. Using a 16-box checkerboard pattern (ANSI contrast), the contrast ratio was 135:1.—GM

Full On/Off contrast ratios are meaningless. Do you watch your TV in an absolutely darkroom, with all the walls painted completely black? ANSI CR effectively measures the ability of the CRT to avoid leakage because of voltage restoration problems, as well as room reflectance. The vast majority of CRTs have unstable black levels. What's more, the brightness level quoted *sucks*. My projector delivers 50 foot-lumens for christsakes, and most Plasmas will do 40+.

You can buy plasmas for < $4000 today which give you 720p, a larger color gamut, and 10,000:1 contrast ratio. If you compare them to any CRT running the same content, this look VASTLY superior.


The CRT defenders are like the stragglers who still hold onto their LPs and claim CD and DVD audio can't sound as good.

 

[randycat99]

...and what about the "kooks" who think the SACD and DVD-A can automagically imbue music with superior quality? Radical thought on either extreme is not particularly credible.

 

[Reznor007]

Full On/Off contrast ratios are meaningless. Do you watch your TV in an absolutely darkroom, with all the walls painted completely black? ANSI CR effectively measures the ability of the CRT to avoid leakage because of voltage restoration problems, as well as room reflectance. The vast majority of CRTs have unstable black levels. What's more, the brightness level quoted *sucks*. My projector delivers 50 foot-lumens for christsakes, and most Plasmas will do 40+.

You can buy plasmas for < $4000 today which give you 720p, a larger color gamut, and 10,000:1 contrast ratio. If you compare them to any CRT running the same content, this look VASTLY superior.


The CRT defenders are like the stragglers who still hold onto their LPs and claim CD and DVD audio can't sound as good.

Well, usually when I watch movies, yes, it is in a dark room with antireflective walls. The only plasmas or DLP's I've personally seen that were better than a CRT were very expensive models. Most of the "cheaper" ones look visibly worse to me. Many LCD TV's I've seen at electronics stores look absolutely horrible. I'm not saying the technology is bad, just that the cheaper ones are.

And I'm not one to support vinyl LP's. I only buy them for collectable purposes(picture discs and such). I'd rather buy DVDA any day(and DVDA over SACD if possible).

 

[DemoCoder]

Uh huh, so you've painted you walls with a mysterious black antireflective coding? Flat Matte latex paint ain't it. Fact is, ANSI CR of quoted CRT is 130:1. 'Nuff Said.

Go find me a 50" CRT for the same price as a 50" Plasma that displays 16:9, 720p, @ 10000:1 CR. Such a PDP can be had for ~$4000 now.

I look at CRTs besides PDPs all the time and the CRTs look terrible. Dim, blurry, noisy images, and jittery black levels.

CRT color gamut has problems in green area due to phosphor jitter and lag. Newer PDPs get much closer to NTSC's color gamut, but LED based technology trumpts them all. Sony's Qualia front and rear projection units DESTROY CRTs. I've seen them in person at CES. We're talking a gamut that surpasses NTSC, 150% greater than sRGB, and their new RPTV SXRD sets deliver 10,000:1 CR too. CRT technology will be completely dead in 5 years.

 

[Reznor007]

These are some TV's I saw at Best Buy today:

Samsung 30" CRT $999.99
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...t&productCategoryId=cat03002&id=1099396990967

Samsung 32" LCD $1899.99
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...t&productCategoryId=cat03002&id=1110265591423

Toshiba 34" CRT $999.99
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...t&productCategoryId=cat03002&id=1110265591543

Toshiba 32" LCD $2199.99
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...t&productCategoryId=cat03002&id=1115365745028

Features were pretty close, all had HDMI and component and were 16:9. The Samsumg was even a slim CRT (16" deep). Image quality was about the same between the manufacturers, with the LCD's being slightly sharper. The price was NOT about the same. These aren't 50" plasmas or anything, but they are common size TV's for many people. I would probably buy a LCD or DLP if the price for a mid-size model was decent, but right now they aren't. The price is 2x, but the quality(to me) is not.

Like I said, I'm not arguing that CRT's are really better technology, just that for the money they are a better value. And they aren't as bad as some people say...I look at them alot at work.

A personal thing I like about CRT's is that if something goes wrong with one I can fix it relatively cheaply using typically common parts. Repairing an LCD control board usually requires an expensive SMT rework station. But this doesn't really matter to most people as TV's are replaced more than repaired these days.

 

[MoeStooge]

Like I said, I'm not arguing that CRT's are really better technology, just that for the money they are a better value. And they aren't as bad as some people say...I look at them alot at work.

You forgot to mention the added value of weightlifting. I am still trying to bench my old Sony 36" XBR

 

[Reznor007]

Yeah, I will openly admit that CRT's are heavy. Big ones are quite heavy. However, if it's big enough to be a pain in the ass to move, I probably won't need be moving it often.