Speaking of HDTV for console gaming

"Cool" only matters to a vocal minorty, the rest of us buy what we find suits our needs and there are plenty of advantages to be found with CRTs there.

 

advantages - agreed [typing on Sony G400 CRT - color reasons]

vocal minority - disagree

I can't tell you how many people are interested and desire for a flat screen because "it's cool" This is obviously playing itself out in retail currently because as you and I know, there are visual trade-offs at the moment by going lcd/plasma over crt but that is exactly where the market is going. Why? "Cool"

 

I really like CRT as well, but I got to admit that some of the newer LCD's have pretty amazing picture quality. A big advantage LCD's have imo is that they're much less sensitive to lighting conditions in the room.

 

My Aquos is great, my cheapo Sova was horrible as far as LCD TVs go. Really, I am hoping to be amazed and floored by SED. I'm just hoping the early adopter premium isn't too excessive. Having extolled the benefits of CRT I agree with DC that CRT is dead.

 

I think it is a mistake on the site because no one crt ever had a 720p native resolution, it probably have a 1080i native resolution but accept a 720p signal.

On the scaling you don't have to worry, the xbox360 done all the 720p/1080i conversion and you have no hit on the quality.

 

Black level bs is more like it. On/Off CR CRT measurements are total horseshit. Black level on CRTs actually moves up and down depending on what's being displayed, so the black level on a scene with ANY pixels on is higher than a scene of complete blackness and this is NOT taking into account reflections of the walls. If you add in the low light output of most CRTs combined with ambient light, the purported advantage in blacks is completely eliminated. Quoted 20,000:1 specs are nonsense. They can never be achieved in any realistic viewing scenario on any realistic content.

This isn't CRT vs LCD, it's CRT vs everything else. CRT has the smallest color gamut, it has the lowest light output, the worst resolution, and worst power efficiency. A CRT next to a Plasma makes the CRT look like crap. It's purported black level advantages are washed out by real world scenes and ambient light.

The only downside of LCD today is that its gamut is shifted (but wider) compared to CRT, but that and the CR issues are being corrected by next-generation LED backed displays. I've seen these bad boys in person at the last two CES shows and they destroy CRT PQ. The SED demos I've seen also place the nail in the coffin.

I'm sure they'll be people who hang onto CRTs like the people who continue to hang onto LP records, LaserDiscs, vacuum tubes, and other *phile equipment that they will insist until death remains #1. But I feel safe in saying that in 10 years, no one will be selling CRTs except for perhaps specialized niche markets.

 

Yes Demo, you don't have any respect for the advantages of CRTs, I'm pretty sure we all got that a few posts back.

 

IMHO, CRT has no advantage over HD PDPs except for cost, but it is inferior on all other fronts. CRT has most accurate gamut from the standpoint of NTSC video because NTSC was created when only CRT existed, just like CRTs usually have the "desirable" gamma of 2.2 because, wonder of wonders, everyone calibrates according to classic Trinitron gamma.

However, just because something is "close" to the NTSC gamut primaries, doesn't mean it has superior PQ. Lots of display technologies have wider gamuts than CRT, and with proper calibration, they look just as good, if not better, because the brighter lumen output coupled with higher max saturation can yield stunning images that draw the eye. Just as well, many displays don't have a 2.2 gamma ramp but that doesn't mean their PQ is inferior, just means picture levels have to be calibrated.

This is not to say that CRT doesn't have slight advantages in specs in some areas, just that the CRT fans completely overblow them, especially black level. It's so painfully obvious if you know what you're looking for, just like the rainbow effect with DLPs. When I look at most CRTs, as they go to "black" scenes I can clearly see the black level shifting up and down, and the easiest way to tell is just turn on close captioning/sub titles, and watch a scene that is completely dark except for titles. Most CRTs also have voltage restoration issues, and the AVIA test patterns easily expose this.

All display technologies, whether CRT, LCD, DLP, PDP, etc have some distortion. It's just different things they distort. I just happen to think that PDP and DLP provide more than adequate CR, better gamut, better resolution, just overall less distortion than CRTs, unless you want to watch a CRT in a perfectly dark room and calibrated by an SMPTE engineer.

 

Lcd's have a fixed panel resolution and this sucks because unless crt you have the max image quality only using the native resolution.

Hd plasma >>>>>>> lcd IMO

 

SXRD is LCoS- just thought I would mention that.

In terms of quality- my Mitsu 2070(NEC FP2141SB) absolutely demolishes every LCD I have ever used in terms of contrast, colors, and speed. It isn't remotely close either. When looking to pick it up I went to a specialty B&M with one sitting next to Dell FP and Apple Cinema Displays and it was shocking how utterly poor the LCDs are in comparison- I don't see them as viable outside of the very low end. I haven't gotten a chance to check out the LED backlit models yet, they are supposed to take care of the horrific contrast and backlight bleeding that so many LCDs have- but the standard models are fairly tragic.

OLED and SED look extremely promising, certainly a major improvement over the completely unacceptable LCD technology.

I actually have the TV they are advertising in the OP, and that particular model does still have geometry issues(mine is fairly new). I visited a dozen different B&Ms looking for a TV in the 30" range along with my wife for our bedroom and when selecting one based on picture alone- cost no object- she came to her own conclusion that that CRT blew away any of the LCDs offered. She was actually upset about that as she really wanted a TV to hang on the wall, but the picture quality of all the LCDs that we were looking for in our size range was flat out horrible in comparison.

The only display that was comparable was the SXRD(LCoS). DLP still has very nasty artifacts with rainbowing- the direct view LCDs all had serious issues with ghosting and had abysmal contrast. This wasn't based on specs, this was plainly visible. It isn't like this CRT is all that great either, I have an older Tau that smokes this particular tube in contrast and it doesn't have any hint of geometry issues- but compared to the LCDs for sale in the ~30" range(up to $3K anyway) this CRT simply killed them in terms of IQ.

Edit-

Not true anymore. LCDs have now exceeded CRTs in terms of NTSC color accuracy(several models last I was aware). Unfortunately they fall down in contrast. That is very simple to see too- simply load up any HD feed with dark areas in a movie and watch for differing shades of black. LCDs can not handle this(at least, not the non LED backlit ones). Then you have to deal with how horribly slow they are.

 

Actually, unlike CRT monitors, CRT HDTVs don't display every resolution natlively but rather they employ scaling to reformat various resolutions for display in the same manor that LCDs do.

 

Yes, but LCoS != LCoS. Sony's implementation has different characteristics from D-ILA and others.

Newer DLPs don't have rainbowing, some have even eliminated the color wheel by using three DMDs.

Well, they certainly have an ambient black level, but I'm not sure that's the issue. Film projectors have black levels far far above CRTs, yet people don't go around complaining about "theatre blacks" Studies on brain perception have shown conclusively than human beings calibrate their 'black level' based on the predominant white level. People don't have the ability to sense absolute levels, only relative levels, and it has been shown that those levels are keyed off of white. LCDs are usually substantially brighter than CRTs, and have CRs as high as 3000:1 now. If you've viewed one of these 3000:1 models and concluded blacks were crushed, something else is going on besides the typical idea that lcds can't block all of the light and therefore CRTs look better because they can turn off emissions (mostly untrue anyway, but whatever)

I'm not really going to defend LCD. I much prefer SXRD and DLP, but I think too many people regurgitate common CRT myths. And I personally think On/Off CR is bogus. In the real world, your eye adjusts according to something more akin to ANSI CR, thus ANSI CR is probably a much more realistic measure of a) CR under room lighting conditions (wall reflectivity) and b) CR under human white/black level perceptual adjustment. There are people out there throwing out 10,000:1-50,000:1 On/Off CRs which are incredibly bogus, a CR where a if a firefly flew into the room, it was be cut down by several factors.

 

Don't know where you got that 720 number, but it has a maximum horizontal resolution of 800 and a maximum vertical resolution of 1080i. Not exactly what I would call HD. I still suggest a 720p DLP for 360 gaming.

 

I started out planing to get a DLP but wound up buying a plasma instead. I picked a plasma over a DLP mostly for color and contrast, but I also found rear projection displays to not look quite as sharp as plasmas with respect to the differences in native resolutions. Best I can tell it is just the difference between looking at the projected image of pixels on a DLP or such and watching the actual phosphors light up directly on a plasma. That isn't to say that good 720p DLPs look anything but sharp, but rather just that I didn't see the difference I would have expected between those 1280x720 displays and the 1024x768 plasmas that I compared them with.

But back to the CRTs as that is the subject of this thread; while my plasma is agreed to have good blacks as far as plasmas go I do notice more detail in good CRT HDTVs, and between CRTs and LCDs it is no contest. I got my plasma accepting the lesser black detail as I wanted something larger than 34". But if I were shopping for a HDTV of that size or smaller, I would certainly be after a direct-view CRT rather than any currently avalable alternitive.

 

Never said otherwise. I expect that's the main reason buyers choose flat-panel over CRT in most cases, rather than DemoCoder's idea that they buy flatpanel for better quality. It's all very well talking specs and colour gamuts and contrast ratios, but for whatever reason when showcased CRTs look the best and are cheaper. And it's not just old flat-screens that suffer. I've a friend with a year old Samsung 24" (or thereabouts) LCD that has replaced his large Sony CRT downstairs as he sold that for space and is awaiting an HDTV, and the only people who have commented on picture quality have said it's worse than the CRT. If not viewed pretty much straight on brightness goes up and contrast goes down relative to angle of view.

At the end of the day, it's you who has to watch the TV you buy, and as long as you're happy with it, it doesn't matter what type you get. I guess there's two buyers : 1) who buys on specs and reviews without ever having seen the TV they're getting in action; 2) One who goes into a store and sees lots showing pictures and picks the one in budget they like the most (which might not be the best picture as there's other factors involved like space). For me, having yet to see any flatpanel supercede the average CRT in ability to show a picture more akin to a photo than a downloaded internet movie, other than the LG HDTVs with HD content from an HDD (smart marketting!), I remain unconvinced flatpanels have 'come of age'.

 

Agreed - great post

btw - crt is great, plasma/lcd it's nice hanging a tv on the wall - but there's nothing quite like having the wall as the tv. 8'x4.5' hdtv - priceless

 

Flat panel sales in dollar terms are already greater than CRT.

Just read a forecast the other day saying by 2009 or 2010, unit sales of LCDs will exceed CRT. Then plasma on top of that.

Not it's not about image quality. It's about form factor.

Hopefully, SED and OLED become viable and raise the IQ of flat panels.

 

That's not the issue. The issue comes when you have a scene that is very dark, or even reasonably dark. LCDs fall down then trying to display blacks in general, differing shades of blacks they choke on.

Much as you talk about the ambient lighting seriously impacting the contrast on CRTs, you must also take into account the settings that need to be used to come close to the advertised ratings on LCDs. They push the brightness far too high, wash out a great deal of finer color transitions and eliminate clarity of differing bright hues all the while still failing to match a CRT- or come close for that matter, when handling low light situations.

Also- what models of DLP don't have rainbow issues? I have yet to see one that lacks it. As a point of reference- anything under 100Hz on a CRT gives me eye strain- my wife couldn't see it at all except on the most problematic displays, it gave me a headache glancing at them for even a few seconds.