High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

Is Plasma or Lcd really better then CRT

bflip552
03-05-2006, 05:22 PM
Or is just because its smaller

borromini
03-05-2006, 11:11 PM
There are pros/cons for all three technologies regarding the various characteristics of picture quality such as brightness, contrast, color saturation/accuracy, maintenance, etc. Which technology is better depends on the importance you place between those pros/cons.

alphanguy
03-06-2006, 12:38 AM
From strictly a picture quality standpoint, there is nothing better than CRT, some will disagree, but these are people who for the most part, don't have an eye for detail. Especially if one watches alot of Sci-fi, the black levels on a CRT are beyond compare, and fast action sequences have "issues" with both LCD and Plasma, as well as content with a high contrast ratio. Burn in, is of course, an issue with CRT, I simply don't understand why this can't be fixed. IMO, I'd stay with SD until they improve the product and remove the burn in issues, unless of course, your'e loaded and want to spend your money... then I'd say go for it.

borromini
03-06-2006, 01:17 AM
...Especially if one watches alot of Sci-fi, the black levels on a CRT are beyond compare, and fast action sequences have "issues" with both LCD and Plasma, as well as content with a high contrast ratio... Old argument no longer true. LCDs and Plasmas have vastly improved and deal well with fast-moving images now that 8 to 12 ms pixel response time is common. Contrast ratios have also vastly improved with CRs over 2500:1.

waltchan
03-06-2006, 12:53 PM
Nobody wants CRT anymore. If you go to any Best Buy stores, everybody is steering into the LCD and plasma TV area. Even me included.

Porcupine
03-06-2006, 05:21 PM
LCDs and even Plasmas are garbage to me, for one reason alone. Response time. Recently I thought of giving up on CRT (due to poor quality control these days from manufacturers) and starting looking at Plasma displays in stores. But then I noticed for the first time that they had motion-blurring issues as well (all brands).

CRTs have 0 ms response time. No Plasma or LCD will ever match it. Some people believe that a response time of 16 ms results in no motion-blurring, but that is wrong. Only a 0 ms instant response time has no motion-blur. What IS true is that a crappy LCD with a response time of worse than 16 ms is motion-blurred so badly you never get to see the real image, because it is constantly being blurred (on a 60 fps source, such as sports broadcasts or videogames). With less than 16 ms, at least for a brief brief instant the correct image gets displayed, but for a moving object it is still some blurred mess half the time (for an 8 ms display). That is still unnacceptable to me. I will only consider viewing LCD for regular TV when they get their refresh rates to 4 ms, but even then I would only accept 2 ms or less for gaming purposes.

But 99.99% of the population do not have the quick eyes to see refresh problems like I do. So I'm in the minority and no one cares about my opinion.

borromini
03-06-2006, 09:30 PM
...But 99.99% of the population do not have the quick eyes to see refresh problems like I do... Aren't you the lucky one! :)

RSawdey
03-07-2006, 05:24 PM
A response time of 16 ms is the max time allowed for 60 frames per second. The SEDs are said to have a response time of 2 ms. Only the CRT produces a 1080i/30 image... all other technologies produce 720p/60 or 1080p/60.

BobY
03-07-2006, 09:47 PM
Which is better all depends on your priorities. What's important to you: PQ versus size, weight, price?

Personally, I haven't seen any LCD's I would even remotely consider spending that kind of money on. "Black level" is innappropriate terminology with LCD--the proper term is "gray level", particularly in low ambient lighting. I too have seen a disturbing amount of motion blur as well on LCD's.

On the other hand, I've seen some breathtaking Plasma displays in sizes that are impossible for CRT, with equally breathtaking prices.

Depending on the methodology used for progressive conversion, some fixed-pixel displays can look worse than an interlaced CRT image, but it's true that the only displays that need to be interlaced are CRT's and the shadow mask on most CRT's will prevent you from ever seeing the full resolution of the signal.

Unfortunately for the manufacturers and the stores, CRT images still look great and cost less...