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

Is a 16:9 tube HDTV PQ better than LCD/DLP?

hidefman30
03-11-2005, 08:20 AM
Ok I started with a Sony 27" Trinitron had it for years, and it looked much nicer than most tv's. However it just didn't have the size for my theater viewing. So I bought a CRT Sony KP57WS500 which also added componet viewing which my previous tube lacked. Now when you get a big projection tv, you can see the advantages are in either dvd viewing, and satellite/cable. Video games are nice too and I have all of these hooked up via componet. However the is a certain sharpness or clarity in that old tube Sony that I just fell in love with. I wonder will HD look flat out better coming out of a tube HDTV than an LCD or DLP projection. With projection you just seem to lose a little picture quality because things are getting blown up so big. I have recently been looking at 16:9 tube Sonys and can see the are razor sharp in the PQ department. What are your opinions??

vssman
03-11-2005, 11:21 AM
I'll jump in... From what I understand, a good part of it depends on your particular room set-up. I have a lot of windows and need the brightest picture which (again from what I understand) is from a direct view CRT. That being said, I read in one of those report type magazines that CRT still has the best picture quality of them all - of course "picture quality" is up to the viewer. I already need glasses so I'm not sure I could really tell the difference between any unit if it was set up for the best picture each could give. :rolleyes:

RSawdey
03-11-2005, 04:53 PM
The 34" Sony will give you a 4:3 image the same size as your old TV, and a beautiful widescreen HDTV. That's as large as direct view sets get in widescreen, so if you want to go larger you'll need a different technology.

To really see what it can do, however, you need some HD video sources... all you've got now is SDTV (EDTV with a PS DVD player). Real HD is VASTLY better.

Big Bob1077
03-11-2005, 10:49 PM
Or you can do a little searching and check out Loewe's Anaconda 36" widescreen tube (doesn't have any digital inputs, but still has a beautiful picture). It's kind of hard to find one though. This and RCA (remember the big 36" RCA HD tv tube with the HD Satelite tuner built in years ago?) has the same tube, but different innards. Hard to find now...

CatManDoo
03-12-2005, 01:05 AM
Ok I started with a Sony 27" Trinitron had it for years, and it looked much nicer than most tv's. However it just didn't have the size for my theater viewing. So I bought a CRT Sony KP57WS500 which also added componet viewing which my previous tube lacked. Now when you get a big projection tv, you can see the advantages are in either dvd viewing, and satellite/cable. Video games are nice too and I have all of these hooked up via componet. However the is a certain sharpness or clarity in that old tube Sony that I just fell in love with. I wonder will HD look flat out better coming out of a tube HDTV than an LCD or DLP projection. With projection you just seem to lose a little picture quality because things are getting blown up so big. I have recently been looking at 16:9 tube Sonys and can see the are razor sharp in the PQ department. What are your opinions??

Absolutely YES! It has been said time and time again in various areas of this forum, so I'll make it a third time. Nobody is going to dispute that tubes still deliver the best QUALITY picture, especially the 34" super fine pitch Sony's. If you define quality as sharpness, clarity, black level, contrast, true color, etc... then tubes win hands down. I know because I have a 34" with the Sony XBR CRT. But from what I hear, the technologies with progressive display (plasma, lcd, dlp) give a better QUALITY for fast moving objects because it seems smoother due to constant full screen refresh instead of interlacing every other line. There is no doubt I would have liked a larger screen size in the 42"-46" range and a thinner set in the 4"-6" range, but I was not willing to sacrifice quality for quantity. There may come a day when the "perfect" set is available (like the promising new SED technology) but until then a CRT is still the best in my humble opinion and that of many others. Hope this helps.

HughScot
03-12-2005, 07:33 AM
Two or three years ago I never thought I'd be saying that a direct view CRT TV can be equaled in Picture Quality but it can indeed. By PQ I'm talking about everything that makes up the picture. At CES '04 and '05 I have seen some sets that are equal to any CRT. I have a Pioneer Elite Pro520HD which is a rear projection CRT and it looks fabulous in HD. But now we have the new 1080p models by Sony (SXRD) and JVC's HDILA 70" 1080p and the Samsung 1080p DLP. The JVC 1080p had the best picture at CES 2005 followed by the Sony SXRD...in my opinion. Plasma and LCD are not the two formats you want at this point for the best picture. So yes, you do now have formats that equal the CRT. Plus you really need a set that is over 50" to truly enjoy HD and since CRT Direct View 16x9 is limited to about 34" you don't have much choice. And the stuff that will be coming out this year and next promises even better quality......ie Toshiba SED technology.

jco
03-12-2005, 05:06 PM
Two or three years ago I never thought I'd be saying that a direct view CRT TV can be equaled in Picture Quality but it can indeed. By PQ I'm talking about everything that makes up the picture. At CES '04 and '05 I have seen some sets that are equal to any CRT. I have a Pioneer Elite Pro520HD which is a rear projection CRT and it looks fabulous in HD. But now we have the new 1080p models by Sony (SXRD) and JVC's HDILA 70" 1080p and the Samsung 1080p DLP. The JVC 1080p had the best picture at CES 2005 followed by the Sony SXRD...in my opinion. Plasma and LCD are not the two formats you want at this point for the best picture. So yes, you do now have formats that equal the CRT. Plus you really need a set that is over 50" to truly enjoy HD and since CRT Direct View 16x9 is limited to about 34" you don't have much choice. And the stuff that will be coming out this year and next promises even better quality......ie Toshiba SED technology.
I disagree. these new 1080P sets can provide higher resolution than the best direct view CRTs but they still cannot match the contrast ratio of the best direct view CRTS. what that means is that when both are matched with same level of medium gray, the direct views still have whiter whites and blacker blacks. Since at this point very little programming can even begin to utilize the extra resolution the 1080P sets posess, I would much rather have the better contrast ratio the direct view CRTs offer because it looks better on EVERYTHING including SD and DVDs while extra resolution would not even be visible nearly all of the time. And the Projection CRT sets, while equaling the direct views CRTs in resolution, do not have quite as much contrast ratio. There are losses in the lenses used.

HughScot
03-12-2005, 05:15 PM
I disagree. these new 1080P sets can provide higher resolution than the best direct view CRTs but they still cannot match the contrast ratio of the best direct view CRTS. what that means is that when both are matched with same level of medium gray, the direct views still have whiter whites and blacker blacks. Since at this point very little programming can even begin to utilize the extra resolution the 1080P sets posess, I would much rather have the better contrast ratio the direct view CRTs offer because it looks better on EVERYTHING including SD and DVDs while extra resolution would not even be visible nearly all of the time. And the Projection CRT sets, while equaling the direct views CRTs in resolution, do not have quite as much contrast ratio. There are losses in the lenses used.

When you buy the best HD set you do not consider SD viewing. And don't forget that a direct view CRT will not be larger than 34" to 38" and since many people use these in their home theater this would never be large enough. As I said before you need over 50" and to think that you can just about achieve that with a non-CRT set is pretty darn good.

CatManDoo
03-13-2005, 09:35 AM
When you buy the best HD set you do not consider SD viewing. And don't forget that a direct view CRT will not be larger than 34" to 38" and since many people use these in their home theater this would never be large enough. As I said before you need over 50" and to think that you can just about achieve that with a non-CRT set is pretty darn good.

With all due respect, I stand by my original contention that CRT's still deliver the best QUALITY picture. I guess the problem is that quality is in the eye of the beholder. How do you define quality? :confused: I believe quality refers to the ability to reproduce on a screen what is seen in real life. In other words, if you saw a bird or a flower or a landscape on a given TV screen how likely would you be to mistake that image for real life? Fortunately, your mention of screen size is a quantitative issue that can be measured very easily in an objective way. Direct view widescreens are limited to 34" and obviously lose that argument. I think the original post by hidefman30 wanted to compare CRT's vs. LCD/DLP. And it is now a tie between these 3 competing technologies with regard to resolution because all 3 go as high as 1920x1080. The key though is that the LCD's and DLP's are PROGRESSIVE, whereas CRT's are INTERLACED. That gives a definite edge to LCD/DLP even though I don't know of ANYTHING that is being broadcast in 1080p yet. But I still say that when you consider things like sharpness, clarity, black level, contrast, true color, viewing angle, etc... you can't beat a CRT at this time. Somebody once mentioned that if you look at someone on TV wearing a black suit, can you see where their lapel ends and their jacket begins? I can! Every option has it's plusses and minuses, which makes it great to live in America where we have literally THOUSANDS of possibilities to meet out specific situations. For my little living room, a CRT is EXCELLENT :D . I'm glad you enjoy your projection set in your home theater setting.

Hopefully there will be some "miracle set" in the future like SED that EVERYONE will be able to agree on! :)

p.s. Thanks to you and jco for your informative replies!

HughScot
03-13-2005, 09:45 AM
I agree that the direct view CRT has the best picture, but side by side can you see the difference between it and the 70" Sony SXRD? Not enough to buy the CRT and give up all those inches. I saw the Samsung 102" Plasma and it was stunning, an absolute beautiful picture. It is very close. To each his own.

CatManDoo
03-13-2005, 10:36 AM
I agree that the direct view CRT has the best picture, but side by side can you see the difference between it and the 70" Sony SXRD? Not enough to buy the CRT and give up all those inches. I saw the Samsung 102" Plasma and it was stunning, an absolute beautiful picture. It is very close. To each his own.

Honestly, I'll have to plead ignorance on the Sony and Samsung you mentioned above because I've never seen them. Do you have any links where I could check them out and get more info?

Thanks!

p.s. My viewing distance is about 6 to 10 feet, so I think the largest I'll ever go is maybe 46" or 50".

HughScot
03-13-2005, 11:12 AM
Honestly, I'll have to plead ignorance on the Sony and Samsung you mentioned above because I've never seen them. Do you have any links where I could check them out and get more info?

Thanks!

p.s. My viewing distance is about 6 to 10 feet, so I think the largest I'll ever go is maybe 46" or 50".

The CVD (critical viewing distance) for a 70" HD picture is about 9 feet. Here's the link for that confimation:<http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html#anchor_13194>

If I haven't seen the Sony Qualia 006 (SXRD) or the 70" JVC HD-ILA, both in 1080p, I would not be able to say they are close if not equal to direct view CRT. The Sony is discussed at length on the AVS Forum as it is has been for sale for a couple of months. The JVC I mentioned would have to be have been seen at CES 2005 (special showing at Mandalay Bay) as it has not come out yet. These two along with the Texas Insturment display of their new xHD3 chip (1080p) showed just what is possible and will be available later this year.

A friend of mine is Rodolfo La Maestra and he is one of the foremost experts on the subject of HDTV. He writes for HDTVetc. magazine and spends his time helping people understanding HDTV and other home theater subjects. In any event each year he writes a report on "State of H/DTV Technology" and most of the material is gathered at the CES show. This year the report is 147 pages long and if you'd like to look at a sample it can be viewed here:<http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/store/ces-2005.php>

alalk3
03-13-2005, 04:33 PM
Toshiba 34HF84 black level cannot even be meausred. Don't know what is better than what, just know that I couldn't be more satisfied

CatManDoo
03-14-2005, 10:46 AM
Toshiba 34HF84 black level cannot even be meausred. Don't know what is better than what, just know that I couldn't be more satisfied

Agreed. I love my 34" WS Zenith with the Sony XBR tube and "Super Fine Pitch". And you can't beat the prices on these sets, which continue to drop. I'll keep it until the other technologies improve their quality and drop in price to where "Joe Six Pack" can afford them. Not too many people can plunk down 5-10 grand on a TV.

RSawdey
03-14-2005, 02:35 PM
Wonder what the quality will be like on the new Samsung & Sanyo shallow tubes... any specs anywhere?

HughScot
03-14-2005, 03:23 PM
Wonder what the quality will be like on the new Samsung & Sanyo shallow tubes... any specs anywhere?

I saw them at CES 2005 and they are about 30% less deep. They did not have any specs on them other than how they were designed. Didn't see anything from Sanyo but LG and Toshiba announced them. They are suppose to have 1920 x 1080i native resolution, HDMI/HDCP. The Samsung 30" model is suppose to sell for $1300.

RSawdey
03-14-2005, 03:34 PM
A bit steep for the advantage, but then that's MSRP... I suppose they'll still be using the same pitch mask material & electronics...

Bleudiable
03-14-2005, 03:38 PM
The CVD (critical viewing distance) for a 70" HD picture is about 9 feet. Here's the link for that confimation:<http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html#anchor_13194>

Thanks for the link. It suggested a maximum viewing distance for our 34" of 4.4 feet, which would indeed make the tube fill my peripheral vision. I have a strange room for viewing in that the whole room runs 10' x 20', but because it is the main access from the kitchen/breakfast room to the bedrooms, we can't make it run lengthwise without the sofa blocking the flow of traffic (we tried other arrangements and the room looked like an airliner). We cut the room off with a loveseat at about 14', so five people can watch our 34" 16:9 CRT and no one is more than 8 feet from the screen (obviously angle was a concern as well, and CRT's lose nothing at the 30 deg. angle the worst seat has in our room). While we may not get "IMAX moments" from our HDTV (at least not often...I did feel my stomach in my throat watching an IMAX helicopter fly-by in HD while sitting my normal 6 feet away), the 34" is sufficient for us to get excellent clarity. There is also a bank of three windows opposite the TV, making light an issue at various times of the day. We also lacked space for anything larger as our entertainment center is a converted bookcase. With so many considerations (including $), the CRT was perfect for us.

Jim

CatManDoo
03-14-2005, 07:11 PM
Thanks for the link. It suggested a maximum viewing distance for our 34" of 4.4 feet, which would indeed make the tube fill my peripheral vision. I have a strange room for viewing in that the whole room runs 10' x 20', but because it is the main access from the kitchen/breakfast room to the bedrooms, we can't make it run lengthwise without the sofa blocking the flow of traffic (we tried other arrangements and the room looked like an airliner). We cut the room off with a loveseat at about 14', so five people can watch our 34" 16:9 CRT and no one is more than 8 feet from the screen (obviously angle was a concern as well, and CRT's lose nothing at the 30 deg. angle the worst seat has in our room). While we may not get "IMAX moments" from our HDTV (at least not often...I did feel my stomach in my throat watching an IMAX helicopter fly-by in HD while sitting my normal 6 feet away), the 34" is sufficient for us to get excellent clarity. There is also a bank of three windows opposite the TV, making light an issue at various times of the day. We also lacked space for anything larger as our entertainment center is a converted bookcase. With so many considerations (including $), the CRT was perfect for us.

Jim

It's an amazing coincidence. I have a lot of the very same concerns as you regarding my home entertainment and furniture setup. I ended up designing the room around the 34" TV with a 3 seat sofa and 2 recliners aimed directly at it. They are about 6-10 feet viewing distance and it ended up working out well. I also have a 5.1 surround sound system and got that same "Fly-By" effect. It was SOOooo COOL. There ain't nothing like TRUE HD and Dolby 5.1 SS.

hidefman30
03-15-2005, 08:32 AM
Ok thanks for all of the thoughts and opinions regarding HD Tube tv vs. rear projection CRT, LCD, DLP, and plasma. I have to say that my rear projection Sony KP57WS500 (57" rear projection CRT) outperforms my bedroom 27" Sony Trinitron. Dvd is much better, and Satellite is acceptable in S-video. I have yet to try HD and hope to try it this year. Video games are very nice to running on a bigscreen via componet. However some games pixilate a bit because to the sheer size. However overall color and clarity are quite good. With the Sony 27" you just get no pixelation on games because it so much smaller. So far I have been seeing some nice LCD and DLP sets, but can't see any huge noticeable difference in PQ to make me upgrade from a 2 year old rear projection CRT! As a matter of fact most say the rearview CRT have better PQ just a little bulky in the size deparment! Did I hear that rearview CRT dont handle progressive!?? Mine is supposed to be able to do 720/1080 and has componet. I also have it connected to dvd, PS2, and Gamecube all via componet and progressive. So whats up on that? Anyway thanks to all for your input. I think I'll get one of those fine pitch Sony 16:9 tube tv's for the bedroom. I am sure my bedtime dvd and perhaps I'll add an Xbox:-)

HughScot
03-15-2005, 08:58 AM
............... So far I have been seeing some nice LCD and DLP sets, but can't see any huge noticeable difference in PQ to make me upgrade from a 2 year old rear projection CRT! As a matter of fact most say the rearview CRT have better PQ just a little bulky in the size deparment! Did I hear that rearview CRT dont handle progressive!?? .........................Xbox:-)

The PQ of your HD set should outdo any LCD or DLP set on the market right this minute. If you set is HD it most definitly will handle progressive scan. You have component inputs on your set so you are all set to watch very good DVD, assuming your DVD player is progressive scan.

RSawdey
03-15-2005, 11:18 AM
The term 'progressive scan' gets used all too freely... CRT based TVs are interlaced in their presentation of HDTV (1080i native res). These TVs often use an old trick to create a sort of psuedo-progressive by halving their resolution... they put the same data into both fields of the interlaced frame. Old video games do this with SDTVs to make a 240p30 res. This 540p derived from 1080i is often used presenting 480p (EDTV, PS DVD). These TVs can't display 720p60 without conversion - either to 1080i30 or 540p30.

TVs that can natively present the progressively scanned 720p or 1080p HDTV formats are TRUE progressive HDTVs... no tricks or limits to progressive EDTV. These displays also support the doubled 60 Hz framerates which do such a nice job with motion.

jco
03-16-2005, 01:13 AM
When you buy the best HD set you do not consider SD viewing. And don't forget that a direct view CRT will not be larger than 34" to 38" and since many people use these in their home theater this would never be large enough. As I said before you need over 50" and to think that you can just about achieve that with a non-CRT set is pretty darn good.
I bought the best HDTV in the size class I wanted and needed. The incredible color accuracy and contrast ratio makes EVERYTHING look better not just HD but it makes HD look better too. I would much rather have the widest contrast range and most accurate color and give up a VERY VERY SLIGHT amount of resolution in tradeoff because at this point there is very little if any HD programs that even begin to approach the full resolution of 1080i anyway so if you buy a set that has the utimate in resolution like these 1080P sets have, but with poor color and contrast you end up with a worse picture 99 percent of the time. And the other 1% of the time if and when you get a really high resolution signal that actually allows the full 1080 resolution to be seen you still have the poor contrast and color so its not even better then, only sharper but what I call "faker" looking. Big is nice, and big is necessary in many rooms, but right now, big is nowhere near as good realistic picture a the best 34" tubes are providing. Hopefully that will change but once you watch one of these high end HD CRTS for a while, ALL of the larger screens are very lacking in the "reality" re-creation dept.....

jco
03-16-2005, 01:42 AM
Toshiba 34HF84 black level cannot even be meausred. Don't know what is better than what, just know that I couldn't be more satisfied
1. Black level has to be adjusted to be "just black enough" depending on the source material so your statement doesnt mean very much becuase if the black level is set too low then the shades of gray just higher than black also render as black which is BAD. Black level is not the same as contrast ratio but it is often the term used when contrast ratio is what someone is talking about.

2. HOW DO YOU KNOW that you "couldnt be more satisfied"??? Just because you really like what you have doesnt mean there isnt something out there better, even much better, that would blow your socks off compared to what you have now. I know when I bought my first HD set I was really happy and amazed with the images I was getting & that they were already way beyond my expectations and even beyond what I even could imagine what was possible. But as time went by and I became more saavy I learned the valuable lesson to never assume what you have is as good as it gets or you get stuck in mediocrity land. This is VERY common problem with audio. I know many people with horrid audio systems that dont have a clue what good audio is or sounds like and will forever never enjoy beautiful music because they think their horrid audio is as good as it gets great ( and promtly turn off the music after about 5 minutes due to boredom/listening fatigue).
BOTTOM LINE ? Never say you couldnt be more satisfied because its nearly always false. Until we have TVS that actually look like perfect clear "windows to the world" or audio system that actually sound like you are right in front of a real full orchestra, there is always room for improvement and dissatisfaction with the status quo is a GOOD thing.
If you say you cant be any more satisfied then you are "throwing in the towel" and will forever be locked into the level you are presently at even if it isnt close to ideal...

RSawdey
03-16-2005, 10:45 AM
Oooooh, yes, ooooooh... satisfy me some MORE! More, more, MOOOOOORE!

CatManDoo
03-17-2005, 11:08 PM
If you say you cant be any more satisfied then you are "throwing in the towel" and will forever be locked into the level you are presently at even if it isnt close to ideal...

You're absolutely right. Thank God the cave men weren't satisfied just because they discovered fire....

RSawdey
03-17-2005, 11:22 PM
And now we're so advanced we put our fire into metal pots while charring our steaks.
Ah, the giant leaps of technology...

meh130
03-19-2005, 03:25 PM
I wonder will HD look flat out better coming out of a tube HDTV than an LCD or DLP projection. With projection you just seem to lose a little picture quality because things are getting blown up so big.

Take a look at the Sony 42" LCD rear projection HDTVs. They have, in my opinion, the best picture of any large screen TV. The models larger than 42" are not as bright, but I think Sony' LCD rear projection model beats Sony's own 42" LCD flat panel hand's down. The rear projection TV has brighter brights, and blacker blacks.

If it were me, it depends on the size of display you want. If 34" is enough, you cannot go wrong with a good CRT like the Sony models. If you are looking at something larger, the LCD rear projection models look better than DLP, and I think above 42"/43" you get diminishing returns.

As size is the factor, it really depends on your setup. I had a 27" conventional TV, and recently moved to a new house. In my new setup, I am a few feet closer to the TV, and honestly, it was a little too big. I recently purchased a Samsung 30" HDTV, which has a 4:3 size equal to a 25" conventional TV, and it is perfect for me at my viewing distance (right at 8 feet).

HughScot
03-19-2005, 03:39 PM
Take a look at the Sony 42" LCD rear projection HDTVs. They have, in my opinion, the best picture of any large screen TV. The models larger than 42" are not as bright, but I think Sony' LCD rear projection model beats Sony's own 42" LCD flat panel hand's down. The rear projection TV has brighter brights, and blacker blacks.

If it were me, it depends on the size of display you want. If 34" is enough, you cannot go wrong with a good CRT like the Sony models. If you are looking at something larger, the LCD rear projection models look better than DLP, and I think above 42"/43" you get diminishing returns.

As size is the factor, it really depends on your setup. I had a 27" conventional TV, and recently moved to a new house. In my new setup, I am a few feet closer to the TV, and honestly, it was a little too big. I recently purchased a Samsung 30" HDTV, which has a 4:3 size equal to a 25" conventional TV, and it is perfect for me at my viewing distance (right at 8 feet).


Be careful with the Sony LCD RPTVs as the one I was looking at a couple of weeks ago had a very visible case of "screen door" effect. This was with a size of about 53".

At 30" you should be sitting much closer than 8' for the proper HD critical viewing distance. My Pioneer Elite Pro520HD has a 53" screen and I'm too far away at nine feet.

RSawdey
03-19-2005, 06:33 PM
Optimal viewing distace is suggested to be twice the screen diagonal. I view my 50" screen from 8 feet.

HughScot
03-19-2005, 07:02 PM
Optimal viewing distace is suggested to be twice the screen diagonal. I view my 50" screen from 8 feet.

I guess it depends on who is doing the suggesting :) . Recommended THX viewing distance (36 degree viewing angle) is 5.6 feet for a 50" screen. Maximum SMPTE recommended viewing distance: SMPTE standard EG-18-1994 is 6.8 feet (30 degree viewing angle) for a 50" screen. My distance is 9' for a 53" screen so I will be getting a 70" screen to be proper. :D

alalk3
03-19-2005, 10:41 PM
JCO
Thanks for the lecture. It so happens I did check out the Sony. Great picture. So was the Toshiba. Stretch options (Theater wide) on Tosh was noticibly better, big thing w/me. Geomatry on Tosh seemed better. My livingroom dictates that anything above a "34 wouldn't work for me. Tosh turned out to be the perfect TV for MY NEEDS. As for black level, hyperbile aside, I meant just what you said and I think you know that. I won't post in this thread again. I post to share in a hobby, not be attacked!

HughScot
03-19-2005, 10:54 PM
JCO
Thanks for the lecture. It so happens I did check out the Sony. Great picture. So was the Toshiba. Stretch options (Theater wide) on Tosh was noticibly better, big thing w/me. Geomatry on Tosh seemed better. My livingroom dictates that anything above a "34 wouldn't work for me. Tosh turned out to be the perfect TV for MY NEEDS. As for black level, hyperbile aside, I meant just what you said and I think you know that. I won't post in this thread again. I post to share in a hobby, not be attacked!

Don't leave, the guy just likes to hear himself talk. Most of the people seem very nice on this site. You will meet opinionated people every where.

CatManDoo
03-20-2005, 12:55 AM
Don't leave, the guy just likes to hear himself talk. Most of the people seem very nice on this site. You will meet opinionated people every where.

I also had the opinion that nothing beats a CRT for quality of picture. There is no doubt that CRT's lose the quantity debate hands down, unless you're talking about weight instead of screen size. But to refresh my memory, I went out this afternoon to a nationwide electronics store and a major retail department chain to re-examine every available technology available today. I saw various sizes of CRT-Direct View, CRT-Projection, DLP, LCD, Plasma, etc.... and this convinced me more now than ever before that there is no way anything beats a Direct View CRT for QUALITY. In fact, after a year of watching my 34" W/S Direct View CRT, I was able to see shortcomings of these other displays that previously went unnoticed or ignored. And I'm not saying this is the only correct point of view just because nearly everyone and every publication agrees with this assertion. I'm just answering the original question posed by hidefman30 when he asked for our OPINIONS. In fact, I believe it simply goes hand in hand with his original contention that "projection seems to lose a little picture quality" and that "16:9 Sony tubes are razor sharp".

Ok I started with a Sony 27" Trinitron had it for years, and it looked much nicer than most tv's. However it just didn't have the size for my theater viewing. So I bought a CRT Sony KP57WS500 which also added componet viewing which my previous tube lacked. Now when you get a big projection tv, you can see the advantages are in either dvd viewing, and satellite/cable. Video games are nice too and I have all of these hooked up via componet. However there is a certain sharpness or clarity in that old tube Sony that I just fell in love with. I wonder will HD look flat out better coming out of a tube HDTV than an LCD or DLP projection. With projection you just seem to lose a little picture quality because things are getting blown up so big. I have recently been looking at 16:9 tube Sonys and can see the are razor sharp in the PQ department. What are your opinions??

Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree because it is more subjective than objective. But I could not in all good conscience recommend a Projection set over a Direct View if the primary requirement is PQ.

HughScot
03-20-2005, 07:04 AM
I also had the opinion that nothing beats a CRT for quality of picture. There is no doubt that CRT's lose the quantity debate hands down, unless you're talking about weight instead of screen size. But to refresh my memory, I went out this afternoon to a nationwide electronics store and a major retail department chain to re-examine every available technology available today. I saw various sizes of CRT-Direct View, CRT-Projection, DLP, LCD, Plasma, etc.... and this convinced me more now than ever before that there is no way anything beats a Direct View CRT for QUALITY. In fact, after a year of watching my 34" W/S Direct View CRT, I was able to see shortcomings of these other displays that previously went unnoticed or ignored. And I'm not saying this is the only correct point of view just because nearly everyone and every publication agrees with this assertion. I'm just answering the original question posed by hidefman30 when he asked for our OPINIONS. In fact, I believe it simply goes hand in hand with his original contention that "projection seems to lose a little picture quality" and that "16:9 Sony tubes are razor sharp".



Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree because it is more subjective than objective. But I could not in all good conscience recommend a Projection set over a Direct View if the primary requirement is PQ.


You are correct, the only problem is most people buying an HDTV do so inorder to watch sports followed by movies. And these people want a large screen. The other technologies have all been trying to duplicate the picture of a direct view CRT and in my opinion we are about there with the better examples of LCoS (sony and jvc in 1080p). You have to remember that the sets you see in CC or BB are never set up properly, have not been calibrated and the viewing circumstances are horrible. A direct view tv will usually look better out of the box than the other types. So while a direct view CRT is best the others have closed the gap so the difference is negligible and when you consider it is harder for a 70" set to look as good as a 34" set I think it is amazing how good the picture has gotten in the last three years. If you want size you no longer have to compromise on quality.

CatManDoo
03-20-2005, 01:03 PM
You are correct, the only problem is most people buying an HDTV do so inorder to watch sports followed by movies. And these people want a large screen. The other technologies have all been trying to duplicate the picture of a direct view CRT and in my opinion we are about there with the better examples of LCoS (sony and jvc in 1080p). You have to remember that the sets you see in CC or BB are never set up properly, have not been calibrated and the viewing circumstances are horrible. A direct view tv will usually look better out of the box than the other types. So while a direct view CRT is best the others have closed the gap so the difference is negligible and when you consider it is harder for a 70" set to look as good as a 34" set I think it is amazing how good the picture has gotten in the last three years. If you want size you no longer have to compromise on quality.

These are all very valid points. As you point out I'm probably comparing apples to oranges, because the sets in the store probably share the same weak feed and have been pawed at by half the kids in town who run wild while their parents shop. So I'm comparing my set which is used under the best possible conditions to sets in public that get abused daily.

And you are definitely right about something else, because I am one of those people who go into HDTV for the Sports. Without ESPN and the Network sports, I would certainly be using basic cable on my old analog set.

I will admit something else too, and that is I wanted a bigger set. My 34" is certainly a compromise. I'd like a 46" to 50" for my viewing area, but there's no way I could ever fit anything bigger than that in my little place.

I hope all technologies continue to improve and evolve for the good of everyone.

RSawdey
03-20-2005, 01:28 PM
I guess it depends on who is doing the suggesting :) . Recommended THX viewing distance (36 degree viewing angle) is 5.6 feet for a 50" screen. Maximum SMPTE recommended viewing distance: SMPTE standard EG-18-1994 is 6.8 feet (30 degree viewing angle) for a 50" screen. My distance is 9' for a 53" screen so I will be getting a 70" screen to be proper. :D

Actually, I'd heard 1 1/2 - 2... I'll change my recommendations based on your well accredited sources to 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 times the diagonal... and move a little closer myself...

Do you know if resolution is considered here? SMTE standard would be relative to film, which has about two or three times the res of HDTV.

ozz3811
03-21-2005, 10:01 PM
I have a sony 40 xbr 800. The best of both worlds. with a hi def ird that passes the signal as produced, Native, A hi-def signal looks fantasic. Better than any big screen tv I have seen. I also have a panasonic 60 lcd. that looks like crap compaired to the sony hidef feed. When a hidef feed comes in the picture will switch automatically to 16-9 hidef. The screen size at this point is about 36-7 inches. When the channel is switched to 480i the screens goes to 4-3 full size 40 inch. Lowel makes or made a 38 hidef 16-9 tube that was terrific. Cost was about $5000. I bought my sony for $2400 when it first came out. So far I have not come a tv that I would want to replace it.

HughScot
03-21-2005, 10:09 PM
Actually, I'd heard 1 1/2 - 2... I'll change my recommendations based on your well accredited sources to 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 times the diagonal... and move a little closer myself...

Do you know if resolution is considered here? SMTE standard would be relative to film, which has about two or three times the res of HDTV.

Don't have a clue.

CatManDoo
03-22-2005, 07:34 AM
Actually, I'd heard 1 1/2 - 2... I'll change my recommendations based on your well accredited sources to 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 times the diagonal... and move a little closer myself...

Do you know if resolution is considered here? SMTE standard would be relative to film, which has about two or three times the res of HDTV.

Yes, I believe resolution is considered here. Please check this link. It has a very nice and simple calculator:

Viewing Distance Calculator (http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html)

RSawdey, in answer to your question, there is a distinction for 2 levels of resolution, but they do not mention film per se. However, you can see they do take resolution into account with different results for 480 and 1080:

Maximum Viewing Distance for NTSC/PAL(720x480/720x576)
Maximum Viewing Distance for HDTV(Fully resolved 1080i; 1920 x 1080)

Basically -- the higher the resolution, the closer the viewing distance.

You'll also notice in the results that you get from this calculator, it gives varying options for "viewing distance":

1. Maximum recommended viewing distance
2. Maximum recommended SMPTE viewing distance (30 degree viewing angle)
3. Maximum THX viewing distance (26 degree viewing angle)
4. Recommended THX viewing distance (36 degree viewing angle)

There is quite a disparity among these recommendations. When I entered the data for my 34" widescreen it gave me these results:

1. Max Rec View Dist = 12.8 feet
2. MRVD based on SMPTE = 4.6 feet
3. MVD based on THX = 5.3 feet
4. RVD based on THX = 3.8 feet

At this point I'll end posting the factual based portion of my research.

As far as my personal interpretation of the data, I believe going 2 times screen size would be a good rule of thumb. I'm actually 2-3 times the diagonal of my 34" WS 1080i CRT with seating about 6 to 9 feet away. And this setup is very comfortable. I couldn't possibly imagine trying to fit a sofa and 2 chairs at 4-5 feet as suggested by SMPTE and THX. I bet if we polled the Hi-Def Forum audience for their situations most would average about 2 to 2.5 times screen size, but that's just a guess. So with all due respect to THX and the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, I question whether the formulas and ratios they use are also applicable for home viewing. I'll probably get beat up with responses to this point of view, but remember it's just my opinion.

p.s. You might want to investigate a little further before you change your previous recommendations of 1.5 to 2 times, because you might not have been too far off (possibly even understated???).

HughScot
03-22-2005, 09:11 AM
We videophiles need to remember that the purpose of the data concerning where to sit is based on the angle of view and the fact that analog TV was so bad you had to sit back to keep from seeing all the imperfections. The idea is that the viewing angle is best at 36 degrees to reproduce the best seat in a theater, which is what a videophile is trying to do. If we wanted to sit 15 feet back from a 34" TV then we could stay with analog. It's the fact that you can sit much closer and see all the detail that allows one to use 36 degrees resulting in a much closer viewing distance and a far better viewing experience. HD makes this possible and we can now have true home theaters. So with a 34" screen the best seat is 3.8 feet away and the max is 5.3 feet for viewing HD.

Naturally, budget and size of the room, etc. will affect most viewers, but it is nice to know what the optimum seating postion is so we can work in that direction. I'm at 9 feet with a 53" screen and as soon as I watched a few HD shows I knew my set was too small. And when I purchase a new set it will be a 70" model as this will provide me with the best viewing experience possible.

rbinck
03-22-2005, 01:36 PM
That calculator seems to only calculate the maximum distances. What I would like to know is the minimum distances. 2x the diag. seems too close for SD viewing to me.

In my bedroom I have 50" HD set and a 27" SD set. I use the 50" for HD viewing at about 6 feet and it is very good for me. I can't stand to watch SD that close on that TV, so I use the 27" for SD. In my living room I have a 40" HDTV and it is good for SD at 10 foot seating distance and good for HD at that distance also.

Everything I've read about viewing distances tend to be too close for my experences. I thing there is bit of selling bias in the numbers to push bigger sets. When we get customers to view prospective sets I would say they allways say the TVs look best at 3 to 4 times the diag. That is overall with SD being the main criteria. I allways point out that if the SD looks good to them, the HD will look great.

meh130
03-22-2005, 02:30 PM
At 30" you should be sitting much closer than 8' for the proper HD critical viewing distance. My Pioneer Elite Pro520HD has a 53" screen and I'm too far away at nine feet.

Sorry, I disagree. Perhaps it is because I have very good vision at distances more than a few feet. I should clarify, when I say 8 feet, I mean 8 feet from the front of my eyeball to the TV screen, not 8 feet from the front edge of the couch to the screen, which is about 6 feet.

Given what I have watched on my HD set, HD OTA TV programming (Law and Order), HD OTA movies (Independence Day), HD OTA sports (NBA), HD OTA PBS HD documentaries (Frontline) and other PBS HD programming (History Detectives, etc.), as well as ED progressive scanned DVDs (Star Wars and many others) I have never felt the 30" HD set "pulling me in" from my 8 ft viewing distance. I did feel my 27" SD set "pushing me back" at the same viewing distance.

Now, why do I feel this way? With the 27" SD set (which is a little taller than my 30" HD set), and with my eyes focused on the center of the screen, the top edge of the screen was in my peripheral vision. If there was motion at the top edge, I found I had to move my eyes to get the whole picture. I find scanning my eyes vertically to be a much more conscious act than scanning my eyes laterally.

I just don't buy the whole CVD basis for HDTV, as it seems to be based on lateral peripheral vision. Perhaps for movie sourced content, especially in 2.35 or 2.4:1 widescreen formats it makes sense. But most HDTV broadcast content today is simply wider, higher resolution SD material. It has to be this way because the content is simply downconverted and cropped for SD broadcasts. I can easily see this as my local NBC affiliate multicasts the digital version of its SD broadcast along with the HD stream. I can toggle between the two easily. You can try it yourself if you compare something like Law and Order or a similar show to a movie sourced DVD. TV, HD or not, is shot in a more close up format.

So once the SDTV is banished, HD broadcast content is shot like movies, HD-DVD and/or BluRay rule the home movie media, and 1080p is the standard for HD sets, I will probably change my opinion. But right now, I am comfortable where I am, 8 feet away from my 30" 1080i HDTV screen.

HughScot
03-22-2005, 03:16 PM
That calculator seems to only calculate the maximum distances. What I would like to know is the minimum distances. 2x the diag. seems too close for SD viewing to me.

In my bedroom I have 50" HD set and a 27" SD set. I use the 50" for HD viewing at about 6 feet and it is very good for me. I can't stand to watch SD that close on that TV, so I use the 27" for SD. In my living room I have a 40" HDTV and it is good for SD at 10 foot seating distance and good for HD at that distance also.

Everything I've read about viewing distances tend to be too close for my experences. I thing there is bit of selling bias in the numbers to push bigger sets. When we get customers to view prospective sets I would say they allways say the TVs look best at 3 to 4 times the diag. That is overall with SD being the main criteria. I allways point out that if the SD looks good to them, the HD will look great.

Those figures are for HD not SD. THX is given as a recommended number and as a maximum number. The minimum is when you can see the artifacts, etc. One should always use the distance from the eyeball to the screen.

Everyone is different as to their preference and that is why THX gives a range from recommended to maximum. For the majority of perfectionists (videophiles) they will have the best experience using the recommended number from THX.

No one is saying, at least I'm not, that this is carved in stone and you should be critized for sitting closer or further away. But I will say that most people I work with start off viewing from an SD distance and only when they see what it looks like closer do they fully enjoy their HD set. One of the pluses of HD is that you don't have to sit at the rear of the room, it looks great much closer and can only be appreciated by viewing much closer than you would for SD.

Hugh

CatManDoo
03-22-2005, 10:26 PM
Sorry, I disagree. Perhaps it is because I have very good vision at distances more than a few feet. I should clarify, when I say 8 feet, I mean 8 feet from the front of my eyeball to the TV screen, not 8 feet from the front edge of the couch to the screen, which is about 6 feet.

Given what I have watched on my HD set, HD OTA TV programming (Law and Order), HD OTA movies (Independence Day), HD OTA sports (NBA), HD OTA PBS HD documentaries (Frontline) and other PBS HD programming (History Detectives, etc.), as well as ED progressive scanned DVDs (Star Wars and many others) I have never felt the 30" HD set "pulling me in" from my 8 ft viewing distance. I did feel my 27" SD set "pushing me back" at the same viewing distance.

But right now, I am comfortable where I am, 8 feet away from my 30" 1080i HDTV screen.

meh130: Me too. I'm quite comfortable at 9 feet for my 34" and even at 10 feet when I recline back. Can I take a guess that your 30" set is a Direct View CRT, possibly a Sony? If that's correct I can see why you too are comfortable sitting there with a high quality picture and super fine clarity. I can still hear my parents telling me as a kid: "Don't sit so close to the TV; you'll go blind".

I also agree with the points by rbinck.

Everything I've read about viewing distances tend to be too close for my experiences. I think there is a bit of selling bias in the numbers to push bigger sets. When we get customers to view prospective sets I would say they always say the TVs look best at 3 to 4 times the diag. That is overall with SD being the main criteria. I always point out that if the SD looks good to them, the HD will look great.

Unless you're building a new home or have the bucks for a home renovation, I'd say most people have a pre-determined viewing area to work with. So if a customer has a limited amount of room and a certain size set in mind, the only way to get a couple extra bucks of of him is to convince him that the bigger set is "recommended" for his tiny little living room. Hence, the understated viewing distances. I'd still like to hear replies from people in this Forum as to their particular setups and how they feel about them.

jco
03-23-2005, 01:47 AM
You are correct, the only problem is most people buying an HDTV do so inorder to watch sports followed by movies. And these people want a large screen. The other technologies have all been trying to duplicate the picture of a direct view CRT and in my opinion we are about there with the better examples of LCoS (sony and jvc in 1080p). You have to remember that the sets you see in CC or BB are never set up properly, have not been calibrated and the viewing circumstances are horrible. A direct view tv will usually look better out of the box than the other types. So while a direct view CRT is best the others have closed the gap so the difference is negligible and when you consider it is harder for a 70" set to look as good as a 34" set I think it is amazing how good the picture has gotten in the last three years. If you want size you no longer have to compromise on quality.
I disagree that the difference is negligible. I view home video and audio as they are all BAD compared to real life. The best stuff just isnt as bad as the worst. And once you watch a high end direct view CRT for a while and get accustomed to it, it just becomes "normal". The problem is that "normal" is way better than these large sets in terms of contrast ratio and color balance and after you get accustomed to it the other ones look horrid and the flaws you would not even have noticed before stick out like sore thumbs. When the sublties are gone that your used to seeing , the result is crude. If you have never seen the subtites its one thing but once youre used to them and there missing, YOU REALLY NOTICE things that are missing and you care that theyre gone! That said, yes projection TVs look better than ever but so do the direct view TVs. The gap isnt reducing if they both improve and they BOTH have. HD signal quality probably has INCREASED the gap because before the NTSC was limiting them both and hence reducing the difference, now HD is pushing both to thier limits and magnifying the differences more than ever. I just hope they ARE able to match CRT quality in bigger sets soon because I DO agree bigger is usually better IF the image quality is the same but its
not better if you get noticably lower PQ.

jco
03-23-2005, 02:04 AM
JCO
Thanks for the lecture. It so happens I did check out the Sony. Great picture. So was the Toshiba. Stretch options (Theater wide) on Tosh was noticibly better, big thing w/me. Geomatry on Tosh seemed better. My livingroom dictates that anything above a "34 wouldn't work for me. Tosh turned out to be the perfect TV for MY NEEDS. As for black level, hyperbile aside, I meant just what you said and I think you know that. I won't post in this thread again. I post to share in a hobby, not be attacked!
There is a major contradiction in your post. You claim the Tosh has better geometry but you like its STRETCH MODES better? Stretch modes totally distort the geometry far beyong any error the SONY, TOSH or any other brand of TV would ever have but the stretch modes are important to you? Any videophile worth his salt knows to NOT use the stretch modes and view everthing in its intended ratio for minimal geometric distortion. So what you have said here is you like the distorted modes so you bought the set with what you thought had the least distortion! hehe, thats a good one. Tosh may been the perfect choice for your needs but that doesnt mean its as good as the best sony especially if your needs had price at a higher priority than absolute picture quality. This isnt a lecture BTW, its a reply and I was DEAD SERIOUS before about the satisfaction issues. Its a common mistake to assume what you have is "As good as it gets" and I was just pointing that out to the forum, not you in particular.

RSawdey
03-23-2005, 06:33 AM
Your XBR is probably the top CRT on the planet... but unfortunately it an interlaced set like all current CRTs. Too bad no one makes progressive ones anymore.

hdtv4me2
03-23-2005, 08:47 AM
Your XBR is probably the top CRT on the planet... but unfortunately it an interlaced set like all current CRTs. Too bad no one makes progressive ones anymore.

For $2000 plus it better be the best CRT in the Universe!

RSawdey
03-23-2005, 11:15 AM
Sony built a few VERY large CRTs mostly for promotional use, with a 96" diagonal (4:3 SDTV). Only one individual ever owned one... Swartzenegger!

Of course, I'm sure it cost a bit more than $2000... it's 9 feet deep & weighs (literally) a ton.

hdtv4me2
03-23-2005, 11:35 AM
WOW! I sure would have liked to have seen that!

CatManDoo
03-23-2005, 12:16 PM
WOW! I sure would have liked to have seen that!

Maybe you could, but you'd probably have to go to "COW-LEE-FORN-YEA". (It's better when Leno does it .....)

jco
03-23-2005, 05:38 PM
Your XBR is probably the top CRT on the planet... but unfortunately it an interlaced set like all current CRTs. Too bad no one makes progressive ones anymore.
And your saying 1080i does not look world class georgous on this set and 720 P looks better on some other one? No sir! There are no 1080P HD signals, thats why there's no 1080P sets. Progressive is only better than interlaced if the resolution AND frame rate of the progressive matches the field rate of the interlaced.

CatManDoo
03-23-2005, 09:44 PM
And your saying 1080i does not look world class georgous on this set and 720 P looks better on some other one? No sir! There are no 1080P HD signals, thats why there's no 1080P sets. Progressive is only better than interlaced if the resolution AND frame rate of the progressive matches the field rate of the interlaced.

jco - This was the quote from RSawdey:

Your XBR is probably the top CRT on the planet... but unfortunately it an interlaced set like all current CRTs. Too bad no one makes progressive ones anymore.

Please read again and reconsider your reply. His first statement can be interpreted like this: "You have an AWESOME set!" I think that's a compliment. He then mentioned a fact that is impossible to dispute: "It is interlaced". If you mistook the words "but unfortunately" as meaning that he is relegating it to the bottom of the quality heap, then I believe you interpreted it one way when it was meant in another way. I think we'd all agree that if it were progressive, that would be even better. RSawdey is just pointing out that there was a time when some CRT sets were progressive, but not any longer. And it is true that one of the VERY FEW THINGS about CRT's other than the limited screen size and heavy weight is that fast moving objects can appear blurred. One of the things that would alleviate this is if it were progressive, but as RSawdey mentioned, progressive CRT's are UNFORTUNATELY no longer made (at least not under $25 grand, I've heard).

btw, I'm with you on the EXCELLENT overall picture quality on your SONY 34" XBR. I can't make that claim, but I am proud to note that the Super Fine Pitch XBR tube in my 34" Zenith was made by Sony. And it has something called a "Faroudja Processor" which I've been told is pretty good too.

Please take this post in a constructive manner, and if I have erred in my analysis, I apologize in advance. Happy HDTV'ing! :)

meh130
03-24-2005, 09:55 AM
There are no 1080P HD signals, thats why there's no 1080P sets. Progressive is only better than interlaced if the resolution AND frame rate of the progressive matches the field rate of the interlaced.

Right, and this is the purpose of deinterlacers in modern HDTVs. The Samsung HDTV CRTs have two native modes: 1080i and 480p. 480i content is deinterlaced to 480p.

Plasma, LCD, DLP and LCOS are all progressive-only technologies, so such a system with 1080 display lines must be displayed progressively, and these systems will deinterlace a 1080i HDTV signal to 1080p.

Like scaling technologies, deinterlacing technology is not perfect.

I don't know anything about the HD-DVD or BluRay disc format, but I assume they will have a native 1080p encoding format like DVD has a native 480p format. If this is case, I assume there will be progressive versions of these players which output a 1080p signal.

RSawdey is just pointing out that there was a time when some CRT sets were progressive, but not any longer.

According the Consumer Electronics Association's product guides, many 1080i HD CRTs also support native 480p.

rbinck
03-24-2005, 10:22 AM
Yes, you can be assured that TV which support 1080i will support 480p unless the manufacturer goes out of it way to prevent it. I think their use of the word many is to allow for the possibility of some weird TV where this is not the case and thus would prevent the need of a retraction.

The reason why a given TV would support various formats has to do with the 60hz refresh which in turn sets the horizontal scan rate of the TV. Now CRT based displays use electronics and a magnetic yoke to deflect the electron beam to scan the tube or gun horizontally and vertically. The faster the horizontal scan the more precise and powerful the magnetics need to be in order to scan the tube. Now looking at some numbers:
480p and 960i is 31.5 Khz horizontal scanrate
540p and 1080i is 33.75 Khz horizontal scanrate
720p and 1440i is 45 Khz horizontal scanrate
Tells us that if a CRT system is powerful and precise enough to support the 1080i horizontal scan rate at 33.75 Khz, it certianly could support the 480p horizontal scan rate of 31.5. The faster the harder it is to manufacture and the more expensive. That is why you will rarely see a large CRT display suitable to be called a TV that will support 720p with the 45 Khz horizontal scan rate. There are some computer monitors that get up to about 23", but they are very expensive. Most, if not all, CRT based displays that will accept 720p input signal will convert the signal to 1080i or 540p for display. Some even convert a 720p signal to 480p for display.

I have a Zenith RPTV that has a 540p setting where the conversion is any input format to 540p, for example. Using a 540p computer resolution will result in less flicker if the TV is set to convert to 540p.

HughScot
03-24-2005, 10:25 AM
-----------
I don't know anything about the HD-DVD or BluRay disc format, but I assume they will have a native 1080p encoding format like DVD has a native 480p format. If this is case, I assume there will be progressive versions of these players which output a 1080p signal.
According the Consumer Electronics Association's product guides, many 1080i HD CRTs also support native 480p.

All of the manufacturers of HD-DVD and BluRay players told me that their players will be either 1080i or 1080p depending on what format the studios release the movies in. At CES the studios said they had not decided.

Hugh Campbell

gwhoughton
03-24-2005, 02:55 PM
There are no 1080P HD signals, thats why there's no 1080P sets.

Your statement is incorrect. SHARP Aquos is capable of displaying full 1080P signal:

http://www.sharpusa.com/products/ModelLanding/0,1058,1426,00.html

I own the SONY KD34XBR960, and LOVE it... :D I would guess our normal viewing distance to be approx 6 - 8 feet. SD and HD both look great... (well, SOME SD anyway..). Budget was a big factor in my decision of which set to buy, and after a lot of research, I decided that this set would give me the most "bang for the buck". However, if I had the $$$, I would have went with the 45" SHARP Aquos LCD~

HughScot
03-24-2005, 03:28 PM
Your statement is incorrect. SHARP Aquos is capable of displaying full 1080P signal:
http://www.sharpusa.com/products/ModelLanding/0,1058,1426,00.html
~

That is correct there are a number of sets just out this year that will display 1080p. The Sony Qualia 006 (SXRD) is one and LG and Samsung are both coming out with several 1080p models by the end of summer. Programming material is something else since unless the movie industry puts out high definition DVDs in 1080p it might be awhile before you get to view anything.

RSawdey
03-24-2005, 03:58 PM
There will be 1080p/24 optical discs in the fall...

rbinck
03-24-2005, 04:17 PM
There will be 1080p/24 optical discs in the fall...

Interesting.... Do you have a link?

RSawdey
03-24-2005, 04:58 PM
Both BluRay & HD-DVD will provide this format... here's some links for BluRay...

www.blu-ray.com
www.blu-raydisc.com

rbinck
03-24-2005, 05:50 PM
Thanks.

nofool
03-27-2005, 08:44 AM
...led me to the conclusion that I'll stick with my Toshy 36" CRT.

Wife and I went to SoundTrack yesterday and I felt sure I'd be buying a 55" Sony LCD. Took a couple of Lord of the Rings movies with me, though, because I won't be sitting around watching Hi-Def satellite broadcasts of the Grand Prix de Argentina at home. No, like most people, 95% of the time, I'll be watching DVD movies. So, that should be the benchmark for me, not a bunch of stuff I wouldn't be watching anyway.

Hooked up a nice, new Sony DVD p-scan player to the Sony 55" LCD and thought I would fall on the floor. It looked awful! And then I found out: this is what regular old DVD's look like, even at 720p. What an unbelieveable let-down!

Next we tried looking at a JVC ILA DLP using a much better DVD player -- the Denon 2910 with an advanced Faroujda chip. It did look considerably better, but could not be compared with the Hi-Def broadcast on a nearby set for clarity, focus, contrast ratio, etc.

Finally we hooked the Denon 2910 up to a Mits 62" DLP, and that was about as good as it got. Pretty good picture, but now the cost of TV and DVD player are hovering close to five thousand dollars, and that's before paying our ridiculously high sales tax in Colorado Springs of 7.4% (on TOP of having a State income tax....).

I see it now. The next big thing is going to be Blu-Ray, or "Hi-Def DVD", probably a 1080p type of thing. And everything that has gone before it will just be superseded garbage, with the possible exception of plasma, which doesn't work well at much above sea-level, and which is preposterously expensive at sea-level and everywhere else.

So, I'll move a little closer to my old Toshy tuber and wait. If most people are as non-plussed with 720p as I was today, it won't be long. A CRT set isn't digital, and you do get some "screen door" effect. But I'll put the actual quality of the picture up against anything I saw at the store today when it comes to playing a DVD movie! Uh, and I never did find out who won the car race....

myers830
03-27-2005, 08:57 AM
No doubt...if you can afford the space, the direct view CRT HDTV still is the picture quality king of the hill. And what's more, it's also the most affordable route as well.

HughScot
03-27-2005, 10:15 AM
"nofool", I'm not surprised at your conclusions as 480p is not close to HD. I don't agree with your statement that 95% of people watch only DVDs. HDTV has been driven by sports and will continue to be. I've got a JVC D-VHS player and movies look fantastic in HD on a 53" RPTV. If you only watch movies than perhaps you should wait until high def DVD becomes a reality later this year and then your movies will look spectacular in HD. I saw serveral examples at CES this year.

CatManDoo
03-27-2005, 10:21 AM
No doubt...if you can afford the space, the direct view CRT HDTV still is the picture quality king of the hill. And what's more, it's also the most affordable route as well.
Definitely. As for the space thing, I'd like to make 3 points:

1. Many people who get a D.V. HDTV CRT are replacing an older CRT, so there isn't too much difference space wise. The biggest WS CRT's are 34" and they run about 2 feet deep which is just a little deeper than many of the large 4:3 tubes people have now. And it's not like they are 2 feet wider either.

2. Even people who go with flat panels (plasma or lcd) end up with a rack of accessories that is about 20" deep. So if they have room for that, another 4" won't make much difference. And the STB/DVD/Receiver etc... can go under or over the TV.

3. Here's something I don't think I've seen before in this Forum. When I was considering various options a year ago, I made several "mock-ups" of screen sizes using paper and cardboard. I painstakingly made replicas of a 34" widescreen and a 42" flat panel. I taped the 42" flat panel on the wall where a plasma would go and taped the 34" CRT onto the front of my existing old set. Then I sat down in various positions to imagine what the view would be like. And here's the kicker: The 34" mock-up "appeared" to be about the same size as the 42" because it was 20" closer (4" for plasma vs. 24" for DV CRT) to my field of vision! You can try this but I swear it's true.

So these are things I grappled with in my search that ended with a 34" WS Zenith CRT and it is woking out very well. And my set was $1,800 compared to 5 grand for plasma. And unless you're talking plasma or lcd, most other technologies are anywhere from 15"-24" anyway so it's a moot point for now.

I do have a question though: Is the quote below true? What does that mean? Not sure. Thanks!

A CRT set isn't digital

CatManDoo
03-27-2005, 10:26 AM
I don't agree with your statement that 95% of people watch only DVDs. HDTV has been driven by sports and will continue to be.
Please weigh in over here:

Driving forces behind HDTV (http://www.highdefforum.com/showpost.php?p=31038&postcount=1)
Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks!

mightymike
03-27-2005, 12:05 PM
Hello, Good Easter morning to everyone.
I don't ppv with our sattilite people but we do watch alot of movies but our T.V. watching way outweighs our movie watching.
Our old d.v. CTR was not digital but our new one will be.
mightymike.

nofool
03-27-2005, 02:41 PM
Actually, I was wrong about CRT sets not being digital. You can buy Hi-Def CRT televisions -- there are still a few. Although they're quickly on the way out, unfortunately, and not obtainable in screen sizes greater than 36", the picture quality is quite good (because it's a CRT). But they're pricey, too. A 36" Hi-Def Sony CRT model has many desireable features, but it costs around $2K also, plus shipping and local taxes, of course.

If I could buy a Hi-Def CRT set at a size of 50-inches, I'd be very tempted to do it. But, I'd probably have to add steel I-beams to the flooring of my house, too, because it would weigh a half-ton at least. I'd need four professional football players just to get it in the house, and then probably have to mount it on a granite slab. Maybe it's better to hope for 1080p, or whatever.

rbinck
03-27-2005, 07:08 PM
I can just visualize those four professional football players getting your $30,000 CRT in your house and then spiking it.

Bleudiable
03-28-2005, 10:25 AM
Many people who get a D.V. HDTV CRT are replacing an older CRT, so there isn't too much difference space wise. The biggest WS CRT's are 34" and they run about 2 feet deep which is just a little deeper than many of the large 4:3 tubes people have now. And it's not like they are 2 feet wider either.

Many of us who purchased 34" CRT's did so because we wanted the best picture possible now (mostly for sports and prime-time, but DVD's were also a consideration), but did not want to invest so much in the display that we felt we would have to stick with it once other technologies became standard and the prices came down. I was able to find a 34" refurb online for less than $1,000 after shipping. With the addition of a pro-scan DVD player for $70 and upgrade of CATV to HD programming (bought my own HDMI cable for $100 and used the generic composite cables that came with the STB for the DVD), I am fixed until 1080p and true blacks for flat screens and recordable DVD-HD (or Blu Ray) become standard, and all of the above is affordable for the average viewer.

Jim

CatManDoo
03-28-2005, 12:13 PM
Many of us who purchased 34" CRT's did so because we wanted the best picture possible now (mostly for sports and prime-time, but DVD's were also a consideration), but did not want to invest so much in the display that we felt we would have to stick with it once other technologies became standard and the prices came down. I was able to find a 34" refurb online for less than $1,000 after shipping. With the addition of a pro-scan DVD player for $70 and upgrade of CATV to HD programming (bought my own HDMI cable for $100 and used the generic composite cables that came with the STB for the DVD), I am fixed until 1080p and true blacks for flat screens and recordable DVD-HD (or Blu Ray) become standard, and all of the above is affordable for the average viewer.

Jim

:thumbsup: Yes, I did almost the same thing (not a refurb though). I feel it's a very reasonable strategy, sort of like insurance. We don't put a whole lot of money at stake on these relatively new technologies, and we get what is probably the best quality picture available right now. And in the event flat panel plasmas and LCD's match the quality of CRT's in the future, we can jump over to those new technologies which (by that time) will have a few more years of a track record on which to rely. Plus the bugs should be pretty well worked out by then. And prices will be lower. At that point my current 34" WS will serve as a nice 2nd TV to replace the 22 year old analog set that I am currently using as my #2 set (analog will be pretty much useless by that time without a conversion box). I'd be kicking myself in the back-side right about now if I were making payments on a plasma. :crying: My $1,800 CRT is paid off and I'm "loving every minute of it"! :yippee:

Related post:
Post 28233-14 (http://www.highdefforum.com/showpost.php?p=28233&postcount=14)

This post is relevant mostly for the last few sentences:
Post 29016-18 (http://www.highdefforum.com/showpost.php?p=29016&postcount=18)

RSawdey
03-28-2005, 03:16 PM
One new tech with potential for a very CRT like image is the SED - surface emission display. It will use phosphors, but the structure is unlike a plasma & can be printed on a flexible substrate (Philips had a proto).

HughScot
03-28-2005, 03:27 PM
One new tech with potential for a very CRT like image is the SED - surface emission display. It will use phosphors, but the structure is unlike a plasma & can be printed on a flexible substrate (Philips had a proto).

That is the technology that Toshiba is coming out with toward the end of this year or next. While I don't pretend to understand it, it is suppose to be a step up from everything currently available. Amazing that we had the CRT forever and then things go digital and all these new technologies come along. All very exciting.

CatManDoo
03-28-2005, 06:23 PM
One new tech with potential for a very CRT like image is the SED - surface emission display. It will use phosphors, but the structure is unlike a plasma & can be printed on a flexible substrate (Philips had a proto).
I wonder if that had anything to do with Philips abandoning their LCoS plans:

Philips abandons LCoS plans (http://www.highdefforum.com/showpost.php?p=31073&postcount=10)
Consumer Reports cited costs, but perhaps it was to pursue a more promising technology???

HughScot
03-28-2005, 07:11 PM
I wonder if that had anything to do with Philips abandoning their LCoS plans:

Philips abandons LCoS plans (http://www.highdefforum.com/showpost.php?p=31073&postcount=10)
Consumer Reports cited costs, but perhaps it was to pursue a more promising technology???

Well Toshiba abandoned their plans in January of 2004 and the reason given by both companies was the inability to make it work and the problems obtaining the necessary chips. Toshiba actually had the model out and for sale and then they stopped everything.

CatManDoo
03-28-2005, 08:03 PM
Well Toshiba abandoned their plans in January of 2004 and the reason given by both companies was the inability to make it work and the problems obtaining the necessary chips. Toshiba actually had the model out and for sale and then they stopped everything.

The article mentioned that Intel also got out, so would it be safe to assume that Intel would have been the chip source for both Philips and Toshiba? Either way, it's nice to hear that SED could be a reality possibly as early as this year. :yippee:

HughScot
03-28-2005, 09:11 PM
The article mentioned that Intel also got out, so would it be safe to assume that Intel would have been the chip source for both Philips and Toshiba? Either way, it's nice to hear that SED could be a reality possibly as early as this year. :yippee:

I wouldn't count on SED anytime soon. When a rep says end of this year or middle of next, my quess would be end of 2006 at the earliest. I would also think they would introduce at CEDIA or CES.

Abe
03-28-2005, 10:33 PM
Hello,
I just found this place and this is my 1st post. I have read this entire thread and am quite impressed with the community here. Anyhow, enough about that...
Couple questions
1. I was not aware that the current direct view CRTs do not produce a progressive picture. If a set is claiming 1080i/480p and "upconverting 480i to 480p, what exactly is it doing? Im not so concerned about the 1080i but more the 480p. I would like to get the most out of my DVDs. A progressive scan player with a 480p capable monitor sounded like the perfect solution for me. Im not sure now.
2. I have seen (by 'seen' I mean on the internet) some 36" 4:3 HDTVs but am having a hard time determining if they are equal to the 30" and 34" 16:9 sets. I am replacing a 32" 4:3 and most of my viewing is SDTV so I almost feel like I'd be moving a bit backwards with a 16:9 30" or 34". Does any know about the 36" 4:3 sets?

I also have a comment on another topic in the thread.

Concerning the abandonment of the LCoS: One driving factor may have to do with the European RoHS standard going into force in June of 2006. This standard restricts the use of 6 hazardous materials, one of which is lead. I am not familiar with the LCoS technology but perhaps it required the use of lead (or one of the other substance) or maybe some key ICs have been obsoleted. Just a thought.

Abe
03-28-2005, 10:56 PM
I am finding other threads related to my 2nd question.
Sorry. My bad. I should have searched the forums first....
...oh, and sorry for replying to my own post :)

jmccorm
04-17-2005, 11:36 AM
There will be 1080p/24 optical discs in the fall...

LOL. I'll be one of four people to watch them on a CRT in 1080p.