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

CRT or LCD

mxair23
03-01-2005, 10:26 AM
I have been debating back in forth upon reading TONS of threads by all you wonderful self proclaimed experts:) . Thanks. But I am wondering if it is worth the extra money to upgrade to LCD instead of CRT. I am thinking about a 51" crt sony HDTV or a 46" sony LCD. The cost diff is $800. Is it really worth the extra $800 for a newbie to all this HD technology or should I start with a crt and wait for the higher end TVs' to become more economical.

Ninjawitch
03-13-2005, 01:54 AM
I have been debating back in forth upon reading TONS of threads by all you wonderful self proclaimed experts . Thanks. But I am wondering if it is worth the extra money to upgrade to LCD instead of CRT. I am thinking about a 51" crt sony HDTV or a 46" sony LCD. The cost diff is $800. Is it really worth the extra $800 for a newbie to all this HD technology or should I start with a crt and wait for the higher end TVs' to become more economical.

Actually I'm in the same boat as you looking between CRT vs LCD vs LDP but my issue isn't price it is dependability and long term costs to replace items.

CRT's a far cheaper and come to HD standards but not as close from what I have read to LCD's and LDP's. Those later two have greatest picture but have noisy color wheels and bulb issues for the DLP which breakdown more offen and can be expensive to replace if you don't have an extended warrenty and the LCD isn't replaceable when it goes but it is lighter than the CRT and not as bulky and depth, but with the CRT's you save dollars and they are closest to long term dependability like standard televisions and the technology is proven and tested not slammed on the market with flaws like the LCD's and the LDP's.

At leats from what I have been reading all night long on the internet and in magazines.

Also CRTs are movable on wheels and heavier, but the LCD's are light as well as the LDP's

I'm moving towards a CRT's large screen for much less savings, not absolute perfect knockout "like your there" picture but very close to it and more screen size for your buck.

RSawdey
03-13-2005, 08:13 AM
First lets specify that we're talking about Rear Projection here, not any form of direct view anything...

Projection TVs use an optical system of lenses to create a large image from 1 - 3 smaller imagers. Single imager systems like DLP use sequential color with primaries flashed in rapid succession, although some full color LCDs have also been made. Sequential color can cause the 'rainbow effect' in susceptible people whose eyes scan at a faster than average frequency or something... among those who can see it, most find it a minor annoyance, although to some it can be maddeningly irritating or cause headaches. 3 color parallel imagers have the disadvantage that they can become misaligned & cause the primary colors to diverge from their position on the pixel. They need 'convergence' maintainence to keep them correctly positioned. CRTs are much worse in this department because they are large & run at a high temperature that causes expansion movement. 3 LCD systems have very small monochrome panels fixed in an expansion controlled holder.

CRTs are the cheapest sets, and have the advantage of highest contrast & best blacks... but they have several disadvantages, too. They use phosphors bombarded with an electron beam to create their light... these phosphors dim as they age, the combination of usage & brightness wears them out. This causes 'burn in' when images that don't fill the screen are shown. Static, bright images burn fastest. The CRTs in RPTVs have to be driven very bright to illuminate the large screen, so burn in is a much worse problem than with direct view sets. The other disadvantage is that they use interlacing to help maintain the average screen brightness... otherwise they would show the region just behind the raster as much brighter than the area in front, a very visible scanning artifact. Interlacing causes may defects in presentation of motion. CRTs are also big, heavy, and use a lot of power.

DILA, DLP, LCOS, and LCD microimagers all use high intensity white lamps to create their light. These bulbs cost about $250 and will last about 8000 hours. When replaced, the display returns to full original brightness. A CRT lasts longer, but costs much more to return to original with a 'retubing', which is VERY expensive ($1000+). These displays are inherently progressive scan & have no raster or phosphors, so they can't be 'burned'. All these micrdisplays can be modularly replaced in the event they become defective.

In a question of CRT vs LCD, I'd definately go with the LCD. It's progressive scan & burn proof.