Agreed... extremely hard to beat a CRT.

I have a LCD tv as well as a plasma. IMO... the LCD really sucks! The plasma's pretty good, but I don't think better than a CRT.

Vincent, didn't we have this exact same conversation a month ago on the DVD Architect forum?

Rob

I hate to tell you guys but my Sony LCD 1080P 46XBR2 will blow your CRT away as far as linearity, brightness, contrast, and you can't even begin to touch it for sharpness. The colors are right on the money according to the Avia test disc.. Of course that is for HD performance. But who cares about SD anyway. How do I know? There is a Sony CRT 25" trinitron 15 ft away on the same channel that I use for comparison. The blacks are actually blacker on the LCD than the CRT. The CRT linearity is an abomination. The colors on the CRT are tinted toward the Blue spectrum and I see the same broadcasted banding on the CRT versus the LCD. The only bad thing about the LCD is in the SD mode when not broadcasting HD the text is spiderwebbed. The SD mode during an HD broadcast is vastly better than standalone SD mode and in most cases the spiderwebbing is gone. I can also pump in the PC mode 1920 x 1080 at 60HZ. The CRT is on all of the time that the LCD is on because there is another viewer 15 ft away.And the Z1, the MY-HD TP, and the Avelink m2t files appear just great. So as far as I'm concerned you can burn that CRT.
JJK
JJK

JJK,

Note that I said a "properly calibrated" CRT.

John

I'm with JJK. I have the PAL equivalent of a 46XBR2 1080P LCD and the HD picture is stunning. The SD picture is pretty good too and better than the models based on a 1366x768 display.
I personally believe that much of what some people dislike about LCD's is down to the scaler and not the display itself. This also applies to plasmas but their generally lower resolution masks the artifacts.
Genuine 1080 displays are less vulnerable to this but even these are scaled to produce 2.5% overscan unless you run them in full pixel mode.
John's comments about properly calibrated also apply to LCD's. The plasma fans would not be so strident in their critcism of LCD if they compared to a well adjusted LCD instead of the over contrasted settings used in the stores to grab the publics attention.
Malcolm

Rob,
Yes i have posted the thread on DVD forum, but when i posted it on DVD forum i was reading a DVD that i have created with DVD Architect, and i was thinking it was maybe a problem with the DVD creation, but now i tried to read my video directly from the camcorder, so i know now it's not a DVD encodage/format problem. , so i posted here to have more opinions. Thanks to all for the informations. Hope flat screen will progress because now CRT TV are stopped and this experience let me think i must wait some progress before to change my TV.
And what about the TV HD ?
Thanks again..
VINCENT

John Cline:
Sorry John. I was just runnin off with at the mouth. I have noticed though when the HD local stations proudly show their HD broadcast center control room that I see a huge amount of flat panels and I assume that one of the big reasons is power consumption.
JJK

JJK,

In my experience with broadcast HD production, yes, there are a lot of LCD panels and power consumption is certainly one factor. In the case of the NEP mobile production trucks with which I am familiar, (www.nepinc.com) the other factor is weight. However, in every NEP truck in which I have been, there is always at least one CRT monitor used as the final production monitor.

LCD monitors are getting better every day and I own quite a few of them, but in my opinion, they still have a little way to go to match the ultimate image quality of a high-end CRT. The only area in which LCD monitors currently have a clear advantage is geometric distortion. I have no doubt that CRTs will eventually go away, but CRTs are a very mature technology with decades of development and LCDs aren't quite there yet.

John

Some of the latest LCDs look *very* good now in my opinion. (Though there are still many LCDs that look like crap. Quality varies!)

In overhead lighting situations, a good LCD will beat a CRT in black level. In a dark viewing environment, Sony's BVM LCD doesn't quite match their CRT (though I believe Ecinemasys' panel would; I haven't seen a side by side comparison though).

Resolution-wise, a >1920x1080 panel wins.

Response time has gotten a lot better with LED backlit LCD + black frame insertion.

Color-wise, a 3-D LUT LCD matches a CRT pretty darn close. It may be that the flaring in CRT hinders it color reproduction, because Sony (at NAB) had a demonstration between its LCD and CRT and some color patches on the CRT are slightly undersaturated in comparison.

Viewing angle has gotten a lot better.

De-interlacers: Unfortunately a lot of consumer displays have poor de-interlacers and you see artifacts on interlaced signals.

The gaussian spot / blurriness of the CRT dot is kind of nice for viewing, whereas particular LCDs like the Apple Cinema Display have a weird moire pattern to my eye / you can see the RGB elements (though other LCDs don't do that). The CRT tends to hide image defects.

Geometry-wise, a CRT can get very good if you put effort into it. The Sony BVM CRT has menu options to change the deflection for a grid. After that, you can tape magnets onto the tube to get it (practically) perfect. This takes service work though.