People like to talk about how the Pioneer 5010 has 0.004 footlambert absolute blacks vs the Panasonic PZ50800U has 0.009 footlamberts absolute blacks, and in theory how the Pioneer 5020 has 0.0008 footlamberts absolute blacks. What about the blacks on this old tv, how do you think they'd rack up. I took the photo with a cameraphone because I couldn't find my camera.
The image is letterboxed. The Y-DC was set to the correct position in the Service Menu to get the purest blacks.
Any guessess on how many footlamberts those letterbox bars are?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/Sal29/RGB/SonyTrinitronPerfectBlack.jpg

There is absolutely no way to measure the back level through a picture of your display. The camera(phone) as well as the display on the other end will display the image differently than the actual TV.

Guesses?

Guesses?

42

42

lol!

42

UM, that's cause you're looking at it on an LCD, cause the correct answer is "below measurable limits".

Now the same set actually may have 42 footlambert absolute blacks in this one.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/Sal29/DSCF0791.jpg

UM, that's cause you're looking at it on an LCD, cause the correct answer is "below measurable limits".
Depends how good your measuring equipment is.

So close to 0 that 0 wouldnt look noticably better. Like the new pioneers.

So close to 0 that 0 wouldnt look noticably better. Like the new pioneers.

True, but if a $424 ten year old 20" crt can do that, I wonder why it costs $4000 for a flat panel to do close to that.

True, but if a $424 ten year old 20" crt can do that, I wonder why it costs $4000 for a flat panel to do close to that.
Because CRT is a scanning technology and LCD/plasma/projectors are always-on. Other scanning technologies like lasers can have equally good on/off contrast, and would beat CRT on simultanious contrast because of the much smaller spot size.

Come to think of it, I wonder why no one has made a display that uses a scanning laser to excite phosphors? Seems like something that's quite achievable with current technology.

Because CRT is a scanning technology and LCD/plasma/projectors are always-on. Other scanning technologies like lasers can have equally good on/off contrast, and would beat CRT on simultanious contrast because of the much smaller spot size.

Come to think of it, I wonder why no one has made a display that uses a scanning laser to excite phosphors? Seems like something that's quite achievable with current technology.

Also, CRTs have had decades to be developed. They didnt have perfect blacks right off the bat. FPs have had like 1 decade.

The CRT might have good blacks, but it also does NTSC 480i, and we all know how spectacular THAT looks. Not. You can barely even make out those images on the screen they are so blurry.

I know it's hard to accept for CRT fanatics, but there are a few more specifications that make up good PQ besides black levels.

I know it's hard to accept for CRT fanatics, but there are a few more specifications that make up good PQ besides black levels.
I couldn't agree more. Black is the most visable on a quick look so tends to get beaten up as of utmost importance, but it's just one thing of many.

My favourite display technology is ILA/light valve projectors, and they certainly don't have great blacks.