CRTs FTW. In all of my experience, helping other, richer, friends pick out displays, the CRTs (while bulkier) always looked far crisper than the LCDs, and even some of the plasmas.

I hate ALL the LCDs that are within my financial grasp - period.

I've seen shed loads of screens, at the level I could afford and just stand, stare and, like a disappointed kid who got ANOTHER pair of socks for Christmas, slowly shake my head in disappointment. For me CRTs have a dynamic I can appreciate. I would readily swap HD crispness for CRT dynamic. The other development-thing I don't like is the drive for too-rich blacks at the expense of dynamic subtlety. I don;t have the technical knowledge to put this into correct lingo - but I know when something hurts. I see great video work being over-blacked or over-saturated to bring about a kind of dynamic. Yes I know, if yah wants film use 35mm.

IMO, no doubt things are getting better. But not yet.

Please prove me wrong. And yes I realise I may very well be bringing a deluge of opprobrium upon my head.

I would dearly, dearly love to be proved wrong.

Next?

well, three nil. i have to say, just looking at a wall of screens, and not readily able to recognise a crt from an lcd / plasma, my first choices for pic quality all went to crt's. on closer inspection they (crt) did look better - viewing angles, etc.,

but what has me slightly confused was this hd scalability. lcd's etc., come in fixed resolution - does a crt have a 'fixed' resolution? in other words: if i want to watch 1080i (or p for that matter), on the more common lcd's it's apparently scaled down to fit 1024 x 768 (or similiar). what happens on a crt? do i get my full hd?

so many questions nowadays that my headaches - bring back the simple choice of low band / high band....

leslie

May not be quite relevant to the question, but this week I've watched exactly the same clip ...

1.As HDV on a 24" 1980 x 1200 Dell LCD Monitor

2. As an SD DVD on a Panasonic Vierra Plasma TV

No comparison. The SD DVD looked far far better.

Interesting question. I was looking at a Sony 30" CRT at Best Buy ($999). There was no question the picture looked better than any other type of screen the store had. They had that hooked up to a Blu-Ray player showing "The Fifth Element". Damn, that picture looked sweet! Great movie by the way.

I sometimes think we take one step forward and two steps back with technology. Sure you can easily mount plamas and LCD's on the wall, but so what! Are we all living in Tokyo, with living rooms only 8 feet wide?

Iv'e had the 34" Sony CRT and updated to a Sony 46" 1080P and the 1080P just blows away the CRT. The resolution is so good the test DVD discs can't really test it. I gave the CRT to my uncle. While the LCD does have some anomalies like SD text pinching on some programs (not all) I love the fact that the linearity is perfect compared to the crooked CRT, and the overscan is 2.5% and not 10%. It weighs 77 lbs and not 205 lbs. The colors and contrast are actually better than the CRT. The Z1 1440 stuff looks just great. The tuner is the best I have used and has a very fast lock-in plus a bunch of toys for signal strength and such. CRT's are in their death throws and I will never buy another.
JJK

It is interesting that the advertising for many of the newer TVs indicate capabilities that the Broadcast industry doesn't put out nor do they have any intention of putting out in the near future. None of the demos in Best Buy or any of the others are of a television broadcast signal going through any of these sets.

John

"does a crt have a 'fixed' resolution"

No, it doesn't. Feed it 480i and it displays 480i, feed it 1080i and it displays 1080i.

Yes, CRTs require calibration and adjustments and, no, their linearity isn't perfect, but from a picture quality standpoint, nothing I have seen (so far) can touch it.

John

It's been my experience at Best Buy, Circuit City that qualitative analysis of different models is extremely difficult if not impossible. The 1080P sets with 1080P demos are just great on most but the standard 1080i broadcasts are (cable) usally noisy and very unimpressive. They basically suck. I didn't realize how good my LCD was until I got it home and started tweeking it (OTA only). I have enough contrast & brightness for two tv sets (backlighting) and I constantly compare it to the other standard Sony CRT 25" TV 15 ft away on the same channel (Analog). I have the LCD set for HD for contrast and brightness which is very different when an analog channel is selected. In other words the HD has more than enough contrast & brightness whereas the analog can be tweeked for more. The hue, saturation, and sharpness are all set at 50. There are some variations in saturation on the weaker analog channels but none on HD or SD. (OTA) NBC live news (1080i) is razor sharp with Fox live news (720P) so close you can't tell the difference. ABC (720P) is a bit on the soft side and CBS (1080i) is as sharp as Fox. The News shows alternate between HD/SD with colored bars when going from indoors/outdoors and sometimes outdoors use digital widescreen which is not very good with multiple images on the faces and noise because of darkness. The older lady anchors with revealing cleavage are terrible with moles, liver spots, skin colorations. Some of the younger ones have protruding zits that were being covered with makeup and cold sores on their mouths. The older men anchors faces are akin to looking at a NASA picture of MARS. There are always pieces of small contanmination of hairs and scalp and dust on the suits and clothing, more noticeable than if you were viewing them live. The local FOX station shows an IE-7 computer website tally of incomming private citizens comments on the news and it is a sight to behold seeing that blown up to 46" in absolute perfection. Best I have ever seen. The only way you can beat this is a 1080P demo with a 1080P set.
JJK

Good points, JJ.

But 9 times out of 10, a quality CRT set will look better than any LCD or Plasma. It's just common sense. Take away the weight factor, and the CRT wins all catergories.

I have been looking at getting the sony 34xbr970. I have seen it at sears for around $850. I looked at the new sony 1080p lcd and the picture had LOTS of anti-lasing and pixel. I noticed moving graphics had a ghost image on the bottom when the object moved.
For the money I think I will purchase the crt. One question, How do you calabrate this monitor?

"For me CRTs have a dynamic I can appreciate. I would readily swap HD crispness for CRT dynamic. The other development-thing I don't like is the drive for too-rich blacks at the expense of dynamic subtlety." Grazie

I completely understand what you're saying, Grazie. I recently viewed video I had enhanced and color-corrected with a 14in Toshiba non-professional monitor on my parents new 32inch HD LCD TV. I was pleasantly surprised at how good it looked. To put it simply, nothing too black nothing too white, just the right tones over all.

We all know that to deliver for a CRT you don't use an LCD and I'm happy to see that if it's nicely corrected or enhanced on a CRT it looks just awesome on an LCD HD monitor.

In fact one of the things I check for, when I'm correcting video is how well my LCD monitor and the CRT monitor match up. Does it look OK on the CRT, but too dim on the LCD. I correct for the CRT as the default, but having the LCD helps me get it right for both.

ushere,

the correct answer is.......it all depends. it depends on the quality of the lcd & what you want.

i say that because i have seen some really sweet lcds, & some that i wouldn't spend 50 bucks to watch infomercials on. the best advice i can give on that is to go and look with your own eyes. also, keep in mind that when you're at places like best buy, they're (usually) going to have the best set up possible - perfectly calibrated monitors, preview videos in hd, etc. - while they put less effort in the lower cost systems. maybe that's just me speculating, but that's what i'd do if i wanted to sell a few higher end products.

also, as someone mentioned earlier, bear in mind that you're mostly going to be watching tv on the thing, & that's not going to look as good as the hd demo you just saw in the store.

all that said, i just bought a 26" lcd last weekend. my old reliable crt went out on me, & i figured if i had to get a new one, i may as well go with the newest technology. plus, it's more aesthetically pleasing to me.

andre'

Whether the CRT delivers the best picture seems to be moot for the typical consumer in the US. Just walk down the electronics aisles at any store and what do you see? Endless flat panels with few, if any, CRTs. The consumer has spoken; the flat panel display has won their hearts and $s. My guess is the CRTs with the top-notch picture that you adore will soon only be available in specialty stores. Probably the same places that sell vacuum tube amplifiers.

Personally, I like having a big screen without a huge footprint or even bigger (proportionally) weight. The picture looks great to me. Sure, hard-core videophiles will sneer, but for people like me who are content with something very nearly as good it doesn't matter. For that matter, the next display I buy will be at least 50 inches -- fat chance I will find a widescreen CRT in those dimensions.

I must also point out that a new ultra-thin CRT technology is being developed. From what I hear, it's also better for your eyes than the traditional CRT.

Most Television shows and virtually all movies are shot at 24 Fps on film or a 24 Fps HD camera.

All televisions have a refresh rate of 60 times per second. When they display 24 fps content they have to double the first frame, triple the second. double the third using the familiar 3:2 pulldown sequence. None of the new frames have NEW information, they are just doubles and triples of the same stuff. That is why people who say there is a difference between deinterlaced 1080i and direct 1080p in terms of visual quality don't know what they are talking about. It doesn't matter whether the player deinterlaces it or the set does it, it's all duplicate information and thus not really "upscaled".

As I said above, the players and sets are more capable than the broadcast industry are now or ever will be. I seriously doubt that the braodcast industry will ever broadcast native 1080i/60 content across any significantly large range.

John

If any of what you said, Paul Mead, was directed at me, please read on:

"Whether the CRT delivers the best picture seems to be moot for the typical consumer in the US. Absolutely! Me too, as it happens. Again, read on and you MAY understand a bit more about me.

"Just walk down the electronics aisles at any store and what do you see? Endless flat panels with few, if any, CRTs. The consumer has spoken; the flat panel display has won their hearts and $s" - Oh yes, I have done the same and recognise the WAVE of enthusiasm for slim=good. I like the design. The actual concept and thinness of it is spectacular. Really! Fine Technologies have gone into this. And I really don't have a problem with understanding the age old concept of "Consumer Is King/Queen". Please don't fall into the trap that BECAUSE I don't like something means I am oblivious OR I'm a Luddite to change OR innovation. Those that DO know me, know that this aint true. Look, Paul, because I "question" some technology does not mean I don't want BETTER!!! I do!

"My guess is the CRTs with the top-notch picture that you adore will soon only be available in specialty stores. Probably the same places that sell vacuum tube amplifiers." Ho!!! That is priceless. I want things BETTER. I don't want regression!! Please do NOT equate what I LIKE with what I WANT to happen. Personally get RID of CRTs - smash 'em up right now! - But please let us have BETTER pictures too?

"Personally, I like having a big screen without a huge footprint or even bigger (proportionally) weight." Agreed.

"The picture looks great to me." Not on the ones I see at the consumer end. I went to IBC this last year. I saw some AMNAZING LCDs. I also saw some AMAZING price tags too.

"Sure, hard-core videophiles will sneer, " Am I sneering? Again I want BETTER. And again, please do not confuse wanting better/cheaper with having an awareness of quality. Personally I ain't sneering. I may be a tad sad, but sneering - nope!

" . . but for people like me who are content with something very nearly as good it doesn't matter. " I betcha we ain't that different? The only difference is I want better - NOW!

"For that matter, the next display I buy will be at least 50 inches -- fat chance I will find a widescreen CRT in those dimensions. " Well good for you! And I my guess too, will be you wont find a CRT that size. Not for the same money.

I want BETTER. I want CHEAPER and I want it NOW! - Videophile or not! Aw shucks, I guess I am a typical consumer - like you?

i am NOT a typical consumer ;-)

i want the best possible picture in my living room, at an affordable price. i don't care about weight, depth (well, to some extent), etc., but i do want clarity, no artifacting, be it lag or jaggies,
and i too want it now.

in my limited experience, crt seems to be much better at my price point / size. however, i'm open to suggestions for:

approx 68cm / 27" @ around the $1>1.5K aus dollar (say $1k us).

and i thank all of you for your time and thoughts to my initial post....

leslie

ushere,

The Sony 34" CRT seems to be the answer. Great picture, great price. It's heavy, but you said that doesn't matter. The depth is 23 inches. Slap it on a stand with some killer speakers on each side, and you're good to go.

"For that matter, the next display I buy will be at least 50 inches -- fat chance I will find a widescreen CRT in those dimensions. "

Well good for you! And I my guess too, will be you wont find a CRT that size. Not for the same money.

===================

Don't forget that the widescreen TVs are smaller than the 4:3 TVs for any given diagonal size and therefore you need a substantially larger diagonal size widescreen to equal a 4:3 TV.

Example:

I have a 32 inch CRT 4:3 television. The screen is 20 inches high X 26 inches wide. It gives me 520 square inches of viewing area.

A 32 inch widescreen is only 16 inches high X 28 inches wide. That only gives a viewer 448 inches of viewing area and is the equivalent of a 30 inch 4:3 television if that size existed.

So a 50 inch widescreen sounds really large but is only 24 inches high and takes up a width of 43 inches.

Screen Sixe Calculator.

Visually, the widescreen TVs need to be really large IMO to give impact to content. That is why I went with a projector and homemade screen. When I project a 2.35:1 HD movie onto my 120 inch widescreen THAT looks impressive and it was soooo... much cheaper than the widescreen television route that would have yielded far less.

Another overlooked factor in this discussion of CRT vs LCD is that the more affordable LCD screens limit the viewing area to a relatively narrow cone as compared to a CRT. Even when you stand up the picture often disappears. I find that intolerable and impractical especially if the only place you can put the TV is along the longest wall of a narrow room.

John

Visually, the widescreen TVs need to be really large IMO to give impact to content. That is why I went with a projector and homemade screen.

I did the projector and screen set-up myself, since I use them for work. Worked decent, but not nearly as vibrant as I'd like. Plus, the projector noise was too much of a nuisance. Not loug loud, but enough to bother me.

It was just a temporary set-up with the projector on a cart. I'm sure that wouldn't be an issue if it was attached to the ceiling like most of them are.

I have to say that so far on my 1080P LCD that the live OTA HD news broadcasts are scads sharper than broadcast film---"Seabiscuit"---being the most recent observed film in 2.35 x 1 format also. It is evident in the close-ups when I see no skin blemishes on peoples faces on film and maximum blemishes and zits on the live news. The graphics and contrast are also superior on the live news compared to film. Yeah, I know your going to tell me that film has more resolution but it is not that way anymore. Plus I can "Soup-up" the contrast and brightness more than it is now if I want to burn my eyeballs.

JJK