.

For true 1080p you need a 9" set, and unless you get REALLY lucky by buying an as is one, you won't find a good one for $1500.

Some of the higher end 8" sets will also do 1080p well, but again, you'll pay more from a reseller that will back it with a warranty and tech support. You can probably find an as is good working one here in the classified area for about $1500 though.

I might add that for the true blacks and shadow detail that properly set up CRT is famous for, any light hitting your screen will ruin them. You can curb this by going with a torus screen, with some added cost, but even then, its best to make sure there is VERY little if NO light hitting your screen other than the projected image. Even the brightest CRT PJ will end up with washed out shadow detail and untrue black if there is stray light hitting the screen and reflecting toward your eyes, and yes this also helps ruin the appearance of the contrast that out machines have to offer.

I really want a 1080p24 capable projector that can take a 1080p24 signal from a blu-ray player.I want to spend about $1,500 for a used one. Is that even possible? Or would I have to settle for 720p/1080i? I'm getting tired of waiting for a digital projector to match what even a horrible CRT can do as far as dynamic contrast and shadow detail. So until then, I'm considering taking the CRT projector plunge. Any advice? Where should I buy? How many hours is too much? What refresh rates do I need? 72hz or 96hz, I heard 48hz flickers too much? I also need about 880 lumens (35 foot lumens) because I want to project onto a 92" 16:9 screen and have enough lumens so I don't have to turn off the lights 100%. I also need the projector to be able to show no overscan whatsoever because I plan on using it as an HTPC too.What do you plan to use as the video path to get 1080p from blu-ray to the projector? Do you already have a video processor like the Lumagen HDQ? Is that a separate budget?

For refresh rate, 72Hz will be best.

92" 16:9 is 49"x84". So that will be bright with minty 9" tubes. When you say "35 foot lumens" do you mean 35 foot lamberts? How did you determine that requirement? That's VERY bright. Even on a small high-gain screen you might require a torus to get that many ftL.

I really want a 1080p24 capable projector that can take a 1080p24 signal from a blu-ray player.

You don't want this without a video processor. 24 Hz would flicker horribly. This is why 24 fps film is shown in the theater doubled to 48 fps. You need to do at least 48 Hz refresh, but 72 Hz is better.

I want to spend about $1,500 for a used one. Is that even possible?

No. The video processor alone will cost this much, then the 9" PJ will cost $3000+.

Or would I have to settle for 720p/1080i?

Have you seen 1080i on a good 8" (which can be had for $1500)? On 99.99% of film content, there is no difference between 1080i and 1080p. In our area, I've watched the exact same HD DVDs on my 8" machine in 1080i then on two local guys 9" machines (G90 and modded 1209/2). The difference is not huge by any stretch of the imagination. In 1080i, you get occasional interlacing artifacts but not that bad at all. In fact, the biggest differences were the 9" machines were just a bit brighter, and a very small bit sharper, but that really was all.

1080i at 72 or 96 refresh is really nice. Even if I had the cash laying around, I would not upgrade to a 9" because an LC 8" is just were the smart money is now.

I want to project onto a 92" 16:9 screen and have enough lumens so I don't have to turn off the lights 100%.

Don't buy a CRT.

Digitals don't do better in ambient light because their white is whiter, they do better because their black is grayer.

In other words, a given amount of ambient light will wash out the CRT picture more because the black is actually black.

Dave

Dave, I know you're a purist, but does ANY CRT'er really watch in pitch darkness? I don't... There's always some ambient light when I watch. A candle, dim lamp that I leave on a dimmer...

Dave, I know you're a purist, but does ANY CRT'er really watch in pitch darkness? I don't... There's always some ambient light when I watch. A candle, dim lamp that I leave on a dimmer...

I'm in pitch black (so black that little girls scared of the darkness have become scared in our theater on a fade to black because they could see nothing--my daughter is used to it though :)).

And yes I may be a purist, but basically if you look at your screen with the projector off with the lighting the way you watch it, that is as black as black will get.

Let me take an example. Let's say you want to watch with .05 ft lamberts of ambient light on the screen. Well, with the CRT, you are washing out alot of the low level detail because the CRT does black at .00001 or so ft. lamberts. So, the bottom 3-5% of your picture is washed out. Now, take a digital whose low end is already washed out because of the elevated black levels. You can actually see the detail in the bottom 3-5% of the picture. It doesn't look good, but you can see it.

My point is, if you want a home theater, get a CRT. If what you really want is just a big TV, get a digital. Those who watch to watch sports with lights on simply need a digital.

Dave

My point is, if you want a home theater, get a CRT. If what you really want is just a big TV, get a digital. Those who watch to watch sports with lights on simply need a digital.Yep. No one is going to be able to provide 92", 35 ftL, and 1080P digital connectivity for $1500.

IMHO, a DLP or DILA RPTV from Costco (http://costco.com) will be closer to what I think the OP is looking for...

JVC 1080P 56" HD-ILA Projection HDTV
Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Item # 133714
$2499

Mitsubishi 57" 1080P DLP HDTV
Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Aspect Ratio: 16:9
Item # 121105
$2,499.99 Shipping & Handling included

Smaller and $999 above his stated budget, but more affordable, simpler, and much more obtainable than any CRT setup that we could recommend to a first time CRT'er for viewing in ambient light.

For $1500 CRT, you could realistically obtain a stunning 1080i. At 92" (49"x84") it would be sufficiently bright and very watchable with reasonable ambient room light (recessed lights not directly shining on the surface of the screen and no daytime family rooms with sliding glass doors). $1500 could get you a Marquee with nice tubes and a DVI/component input card (for 720p or 1080i... not 1080P@72).

If you're not watching in pitch black, then really the one thing that sets CRTs apart (on/off CR) is being completely wasted. Why bother with a CRT then?

Yep. No one is going to be able to provide 92", 35 ftL, and 1080P digital connectivity for $1500.

IMHO, a DLP or DILA RPTV from Costco (http://costco.com) will be closer to what I think the OP is looking for...

JVC 1080P 56" HD-ILA Projection HDTV
Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Item # 133714
$2499

Mitsubishi 57" 1080P DLP HDTV
Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Aspect Ratio: 16:9
Item # 121105
$2,499.99 Shipping & Handling included

Smaller and $999 above his stated budget, but more affordable, simpler, and much more obtainable than any CRT setup that we could recommend to a first time CRT'er for viewing in ambient light.

For $1500 CRT, you could realistically obtain a stunning 1080i. At 92" (49"x84") it would be sufficiently bright and very watchable with reasonable ambient room light (recessed lights not directly shining on the surface of the screen and no daytime family rooms with sliding glass doors). $1500 could get you a Marquee with nice tubes and a DVI/component input card (for 720p or 1080i... not 1080P@72).

What about the Hitachi CRT RP sets still being sold? Great bang for the buck now.

Marc

If you're not watching in pitch black, then really the one thing that sets CRTs apart (on/off CR) is being completely wasted. Why bother with a CRT then?

Well, I would say "the main thing" or "a major thing", not the "one thing".

Many of us also like the "look" of the CRT picture better then the "look" of digitals. I don't think we are yet at the point that CR is the ONLY reason to have a CRT.

Dave

What about the Hitachi CRT RP sets still being sold? Great bang for the buck now.I haven't really shopped for RP sets lately. The ones I mentioned were only notional examples, not recommendations.

I just remembered going to costco last weekend and being amazed at how cheap the 60"+ displays have become, so I just went to costco.com and searched on 1080p and found those 2 for $2499. If the OP can settle for 1080i, 720p, or 768p, he can get even larger RPTVs for <$1699.

I found a G70 with 6k hours and tubes that rate 9/7/8 RGB, and was able to buy & freight it to me for just under $1500. So it can be done but you have to make some concessions.. And I already had a Samsung DirecTV receiver that I'm using to up-scale DVD, so I'm getting by without a stand-alone scaler for now.

I do tend to agree with the others here, a digital may be the way to go for your needs..

I found a G70 with 6k hours and tubes that rate 9/7/8 RGB, and was able to buy & freight it to me for just under $1500. So it can be done but you have to make some concessions...Yep... concessions like not getting 35 ftL and not getting 1080P@72.

He couldn't get decent lights on viewing without a high gain screen, preferrably silver so black still looks somewhat black with lights on. Otherwise nothing looks really black and you'll have to drive the tubes hard enough to cause burn in using it as a pc monitor.

Forget crt projectors in your case unless you want to DIY a silver screen or buy a UHG torus also. That means you'd be looking at 1080i for video and xga to sxga for desktop. 1080i desktop is annoying with line twidder and text even on a 92" screen is still often too small to be readable no matter how you adjust it in the options.

What you ask for is exactly how I use my setup now, but until I got a torus it wasn't worth while with the lights on at all. Now it is, and it's my main pc monitor and racks up 10 hours a day sometimes. I usually run the desktop at xga so everything is easily readable from 1.5x viewing distance. Now lights on or sunlight bleeding through the blinds is no big deal, before with a white screen it was worthless.


Troy

Yep... concessions like not getting 35 ftL and not getting 1080P@72.

You beat me to it! I was going to say, yeah, he can get a great picture, he just has to concede his 3 main requirements: light output, 1080p @ 24 multiple straight from source to PJ, and watching in ambient light!

Dave

35 Ftl??? 10 is heaps. 35 will drive you out of the room.

I always watch in pitch darkness...otherwise what's the point?

And what Person99 (Dave) said in post #5 is spot on - I agree 100%.

Around 16 to 18 Ftl is required for cinema, and 35 Ftl for reference materialThis discussion (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8302551&&#post8302551) is consistent with the 12-15 ftL numbers I've always heard:
For reference SMPTE standards suggest a range of 12-22ftl with 16ftl or greater preferred and less than 10ftl unacceptable. But, ideally everything should be 16 or greater with what they term gate open. Gate open means no film in the projector. When you add film that ideal of 16ftl now becomes ~12-13 ftl. 12ftl is also the minimum for D-cinema standards....

If you have the right environment (basically a cave) you can get away with 8-9ftl...

The formula for this is simply ftl=lumens/area x gain. Area is in square feet (height x width using feet not inches). There are a number of calculators that do this for you. Scott's calculator (http://www.scottgammans.net/scooterplex2/foot-lambert-calculator.xls) seems correct. Again, I don't think you'll be able to get 1080P@72 at 35 ftL from a CRT on a 92" screen, especially for <$1500.

Well you have to 'fiddle' with all CRTs to get a watchable pix.

I dunno, like I said, as is for $1K, you're taking your chances. Someone here got a SCREAMING good deal overseas on a top of the line Vision 1. I don't think he's had 10 hours of viewing as it keeps breaking down.

I happened to buy some other sets from the same seller, paid almost nothing for them, but had to V ERY carefully go through each set and do massive repairs. The sets had been gone over by (apparently) non techs. It took a lot of work, but that's what I do well, repair CRTs. Again, check the classifieds here. $1K for a top of the line 8" set in good shape is on the low side. For something on eBay as is, it's on the high side..:)

I used that calculator, it said for a 16:9@92" if I'm using 100% of the lumens I'd have
35.04 Ftl with a 880 lumens projector.

I'm very diligent, a person PMed me saying that a very good 8" tube its very possible to get 1080p24@72hz for under $1,000 used, if you're willing to fiddle with calibrating? Such as an NEC XG110? I won't need a "processor, I'm planning on getting a new computer with a Blu-ray drive and using an HTPC to output 72hz.


Nah, you'd want to run 1080i 72hz, or 1080i 96hz from a PC to an 8"er. Although Mike Parker has been running a modded Marquee 8"er at 1080p 72hz, it's basically beyond the capabilities of all CRT projectors, except a handfull of the very best 9"ers ($$$). The mods aren't cheap, and no way could you squeeze them into your budget.


A high refresh rate 1080i will look better. Much sharper. It really is a perfect match for an 8" LC EM focus CRT.

And I'll say it again, I have a measured 10 Ftl on my XG LC and it's HEAPS bright enough. 10-12 Ftl is fine. 35FtL would be unbearable on a large screen at 1-1.5x width.

I would usually avoid these threads, but this idea that monitors with small screens and large screens should be similar is misleading. You don't need as much light on a large screen as you do with a small screen. Think about a small window compared to a large window with sunlight coming through it.

That reply was kind of vague, but I am into this Modern Marvels episode on renewable energy. I know Mark would like to see this.:)

If I were to get something like that, which is 1200 lumens and run it at 70% power? That would give me 33.45 Ftl with no filter for lights on viewing and if I put on a ND 0.6 (4x power, 2 f-stops) for movies, I could then have 16.72 Ftl. Would that work?


No way. 1200 lumens out of a CRT? Not gonna happen.

I really think your expectations and desires are unrealistic for a CRT.

As I see it, you want a very bright image, and you want to watch with ambient light. I do not see any reason why a CRT projector would be suggested as an appropriate preferred choice for this task. To be honest, I don't think going with a CRT given your needs is a good choice at all. You'll be much better served by a high-output digital projector in my opinion.

Also, I think your expectations of achieving this performance at your pricepoint is not realistic either.

This "random" XG110 he is mentioning is mine. Chris, what are you talking about a XG not being a 1200 lumen projector? According to Curt's website it is, although its not the same measurement as digitals I believe.

reio-ta, have you ever seen a crt projector perform? How do you know exactly how bright you need this to be? I ran my XG at 55 out of 100 brightness and that was plenty for me. Although I do have to agree with the comments on the board, 1080p out of an 8'' just isn't very likely and not recommended. The difference between 1080i and p are nill compared to the price.

It's apples and oranges comparing a 1200 lumin digital to a rated 1200 lumin crt. The bulb pj always wins they're not rated in the same way.

I agree with everyone else who says crt is not for your purpose at all. Forget it...

BTW rear projection tv's aren't like they used to be. Go see the new super thin dlp and lcd rear projections if you don't believe me. Some stunning quality can be had at your price point but yes you will have to go into the service menu to fix overscan or with the desktop controls. No big deal. In your price range that's the best bang for your buck unless you stick to a 42" westy 1080p lcd.

Troy

Aren't reference monitors in studios set to give off 35 lumens every foot? Studios aren't 100% bat cave?

They are also not front projection!

So all you want is a CRT with 35 ftL, 1080P@72, MP-level performance for <$1500.

MP means Mike Parker. Mike does CRT mods. Unless you got in on the discount buy recently, the mods would consume your entire budget (more or less).

This unit is the only 8" projector that anyone has ever claimed will have a decent stab at 1080p at 72hz. All other 8"ers seem to look best at 1080i. Hell, on paper even the best of the 9"ers don't have what it takes to do 1080p 72hz - although I think they would look good.

You see in the above pic how the vertical 1:1 lines are grey/blue compared to the horizontal lines? This is due to the bandwidth requirement - it can't swing the CRT cathodes from black to white fast enough. You get light grey/dark grey. The blue tinge is due to the intentional blue defocus to get a good greyscale (and your eye doesn't see blue very well, it doesn't matter).
It's pretty impressive though - my NEC XG LC looks much the same at 1080i 72hz - half the bandwidth.

The horizontal 1:1 lines are reasonably clear. Most late model 8"ers can do this - this is an easier task.

Mike Parker's mods are for Marquees (and soon barcos), they involve modding the existing boards, not adding an extender board. I'm a bit lost as to where the extender board thing came from (?).

Post your location and someone might be able to show you an 8" CRT running HD.

Ahh, Tse is talking about service extender boards. So you can access the PCBs while running. Normally they are in card cages.

It's not relevant for normal use.

No PJ is going to do 35 ft laberts--period. Not digital, not CRT.

A CRT is going to be maybe around 10 and a digital maybe around 16. If these are not OK, forget front projection.

Secondly, I don't even know what "1080p24@72" means. That makes no sense, you are talking two difference refresh rates. So, I'm assuming you mean 1080p@72.

What are going to be you sources for this? Currently only HTPC will do this. Unless your plan is to steal content, your HD cable will not be able to be displayed at that since no scaler goes that high.

No one said there was "no difference" between 1080i and 1080p. What was said is that the difference was minimal. If you want an 8", here is your choice:
1) 1080p which will be softer 100% of the time on 100% of the content.
2) 1080i which will be sharper but have artifacts 1% of the time.

I've done 1080p/60 on mine. I can get a respecable 1080p, but I still run 1080i because it is sharper. There are only a few 8" machines I would even consider trying 1080p on, and they will only do it if the tubes and electronics are good, and they will still not be as sharp as 1080i. These are:
Zenith Pro 1200X/Barco Cine 8 Onyx
Barco 1208s/2
NEC XG
Sony G70

And, now the Sony guys will beat me up, but the G70 just barely makes it to that list, the top 3 will give a better go at it then the G70 IMO.

You might be able to find one of the above in great condition for around $1500, but again, not every example is going to crank out 1080p, and all of them will still be softer than 1080p on a good 9" or 1080i on them.

Another route is a modded Quee, but it will cost more than the above.

You can try one of the low end 9" machines. If you get lucky and get a good example, then you can celibrate. But ask youself, "why do those low end 9" machines go for less then half the desirable 9" machine?" Personally, I'm not sure I'd give an Ampro 4200 to my worst enemy, I think Karma or God or something would strike me down for that sin.

Bottom line, I don't know what you are trying to accomplish. All of the people in this thread that are giving you good info have been using CRT PJs for over 2 years. Some for well over 2 years. Some of them (Clarence) have even owned just about every PJ you could find in your price range. But, you keep telling us we are wrong and don't know what we are talking about.

So, do your research and buy what you want. If you want to feel good about 1080p on an 8" to justify in your mind, go ahead and search the archives for all the folks claiming to do 1080p on an 8"--they are there. I've never seen one that is not soft, i.e. as sharp as a 9" or that same PJ doing 1080i, but have at it!

Dave

What I meant by 1080p24@72hz, is taking a 1920x1080p 24 frame per second source and frame triple using an HTPC to the projector to get 72hz.

My point is that it doesn't matter what the stream is. For film sourced material, 1080i/60 can be turned into 1080p/72 JUST as effectively as 1080p/24 can be turned into 1080p/72.

It does not mater what the stream is, it just matters what the original source was.

I just need 1080p, I don't ever want to output interlaced.

And that is fine. The only point was "theory" and "practice" are not always the same. I could be wrong, but tt seemed like you were saying that you have never ever seen a good 8" PJ at 1080i/72 or 1080i/96 and based upon the fact that you have no idea what it looks like, you know you don't want it. That seemed very odd to me. Especially since even the 9" owners doing 1080p were pretty happy with the 1080i from my PJ.

Thats a "sin" to me

Just out of curiosity, is it a "sin" to watch material that was shot with HD video cameras at 1080i/60 in 1080i/60?

BTW, if you are looking at a 1292, I hope you have plans for a hushbox! :)

Dave

Have you even seen a CRT FP? If not, then find someone with one and take a look. At that point, people may be able to help you better. Until you have seen one, you are just pissing in the wind.

Have you even seen a CRT FP? If not, then find someone with one and take a look. At that point, people may be able to help you better. Until you have seen one, you are just pissing in the wind.

hahah, thats pretty funny. But Ericglo has a great point, you really can't know what you want until you see both 1080i and 1080p. And Person99, Dave, also has a very good point about making a husbox for the Sony 1292. That thing is loud, so if you do get that just start making plans to build a box to put it in. I'm pretty sure you can find some exampls and or plans of them here on the forums. But right now I think the best advice given is to go look at one. I had no clue what to expect until I saw Dave's Cine 8. Beautiful machine and threw an excellent pic, I can't imagine wanting anything more even if it was running at 1080i.

I've seen a Pioneer HDTV CRT RPTV back in the day, looked very nice. That would be pretty much the same thing?

I won't say with 100% certainty, but I doubt thats even close to the same.

1080P is actually twice the the performance of 1080I, and that's what makes the newer 1080P digitals so attractive.

1080P on CRT is not so easy to resolve, and it has nothing to do with the size of the tubes, it's just that it's easy to do on a larger CRT surface than it is on a smaller CRT surface. And that explains why the Marquees have the same video chain in both 8" and 9" projectors.

However, the key to resolving 1080P is bandwidth and speed. A high bandwidth/fast video chain could easily resolve 1080P on an 8" CRT surface, whereas, a lower bandwidth video chain would need a larger surface, because low bandwidth would not produce the smaller lines needed for the smaller surface.

The CRT's in most of the 8" CRT projectors have a pixel (addressable) resolution that's very capable of handling the 1920x1080 lines on the tubes face. They are usually somewhere around 2000x1600 pixel resolution, and that's more than enough to do 1920x1080 lines (pixels).

I have an 8" Marquee that's crazy sharp at 1080P. And it'll remain sharp beyond 1080P. 1080I on this machine is not worth watching, especially if you've seen 1080P fully resolved - it's twice the image of 1080I.

I've done 1080p/60 on mine. I can get a respecable 1080p, but I still run 1080i because it is sharper. There are only a few 8" machines I would even consider trying 1080p on, and they will only do it if the tubes and electronics are good, and they will still not be as sharp as 1080i. These are:
Zenith Pro 1200X/Barco Cine 8 Onyx
Barco 1208s/2
NEC XG
Sony G70

And, now the Sony guys will beat me up, but the G70 just barely makes it to that list, the top 3 will give a better go at it then the G70 IMO.I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion, but it's irrelevant anyway. Who cares which 8" PJ does the best job of resolving 1080p. NONE of them do it well and virtually no one runs it. It's like a contest to see whos sh!t stinks the least.

By your own admission, your corner focus is not as good as my G70's, and my corner focus is terrible! How do you come to the conclusion that you Zenith has the most resolving power of the 8" LC PJs?

Dave, sometimes your bias overwhelms your common sense and the fanboy in you says some silly things. ;)

1080P is actually twice the the performance of 1080I, and that's what makes the newer 1080P digitals so attractive.



TSE may disagree with you.:) I believe he has told me that 1080i is virtually indestinguishable to 1080p. I don't want to speak for Scott, so hopefully he can elaborate. For some reason, I just can't get my head around the whole interlace thing.

Mike P...do you have to have the newer "higher resolution" tubes for your Marquee to output 1080P? Or will the stock tubes + your mods = 1080P??

Ben

TSE may disagree with you.:) I believe he has told me that 1080i is virtually indestinguishable to 1080p. I don't want to speak for Scott, so hopefully he can elaborate. For some reason, I just can't get my head around the whole interlace thing.I don't really know, but from what I've read I also get the impression there's little if any difference.

reio-ta,

I would agree with all the above. You have never seen a front projection CRT, you are only basing what you want based on specifications.

You SHOULD be basing what you want on what your EYES tell you, not numbers.

It is a common fallacy, even amongst some with more experience than you. :(

Mike P...do you have to have the newer "higher resolution" tubes for your Marquee to output 1080P? Or will the stock tubes + your mods = 1080P??

Ben

No, there's nothing special about that I know of.


TSE may disagree with you.:) I believe he has told me that 1080i is virtually indestinguishable to 1080p. I don't want to speak for Scott, so hopefully he can elaborate. For some reason, I just can't get my head around the whole interlace thing.

I think I understand what he meant, and that would be that both 1920x1080I and 1920x1080P both have the same resolution. However, 1080p has twice the information that 1080I has, and that explains the high bandwidth requirement. there's more there with 1080P, and it shows if your able to resolve it.

If there's not much difference, tell that to the digital guys. It's only after they were able to get to 1080P that they were truly closer to CRT.

You haven't seen 1080i done right, that's clear from the way you talk about it. 1080i with film material IS 1080p. (24 frames per second easily fits into 60 fields per second) It just has to be decoded and displayed properly. Plus CRT projectors smooth out edges/jaggies/etc and also smooth out flicker.

Sure go for one that can attempt 1080p if you like, just remember we told you so when it looks better at 1080i. The lenses on almost all 8" machines are not capable of 1080p, even if they have capable tubes and bandwidth for it.

Do you even have room for a 9" crt projector? Close to 200lbs and some three and a half to four feet long. (barco)

If I were shopping for the picture you want I would choose a 1080p digital. Knowing what I know about their drawbacks though I would choose a crt at 1080i. NEC XG would be a good place to start. Marquee's without LC and color filtering don't have great colors, same with the barco's that use 180dvb22 tubes. The closest you'll get to reference performance in your price range is an XG or bump your price range up to around $6000 or more. The difference is not as great as you clearly think but that's because you've never seen any high res crt projectors at all to base your assumptions on.

You're not Mike Parker so even if you had his modified pj's you would not get his results. CRT pj's are incredibly complicated to set up for THAT level of performance. It would cost more than $1500 just to have one professionally set one up for that, not counting any modifications or the pj cost. As an amateur it could take you a couple years before you were able to dial it in for 1080p if ever.

Troy

1080P is actually twice the the performance of 1080I, and that's what makes the newer 1080P digitals so attractive.

I have an 8" Marquee that's crazy sharp at 1080P. And it'll remain sharp beyond 1080P. 1080I on this machine is not worth watching, especially if you've seen 1080P fully resolved - it's twice the image of 1080I.

Please explain Mike.

Digital guys are pumped up about 1080p because no digital can display interlaced. So, their choices are 1080p or 720p. Clearly they want more resolution.

Forget the occasional interlacing artifact for a second (because that is really the valid i/p argument), I fail to understand "1080p is twice the performance of 1080i".
If we actually had 1080p/60 source material, I would agree, but all our 1080 source material originates as one of the following two:
1) 1080p/24
2) 1080i/60

For both of these cases, there is no difference in the amount of info presented between 1080i/96 and 1080p/72 for film content or 1080i/60 and 1080p/60 for video content.

The only solid argument (other than interlacing artifacts) for 1080p over 1080i on an 8" I can see is if the source material is 720p/60. Then interlacing that will result in a loss of picture data. But then, you just show it as 720p/60 on the 8".

If the source material is film (1080p/24) or HD video at 1080i/60, then there is NO DIFFERENCE in the amount of detail presented on the screen between 1080i and 1080p. The persistence of vision coupled with the phosphor persistence means your brain fully resolves the 1080i into 1080p. For an easy test, if a static image at 1080i and 1080p look different, there is something wrong in the set up.

So, until we get 1080p/60 source material, the ONLY thing 1080p buys you over 1080i is the elimination of interlacing artifacts. These include:
1) Moire (which I've seen twice in 2 years in movies)
2) Stair stepping (more common but greatly reduced with 1080i optimized set up and high refresh rates)
3) Motion dependent resolution for 1080i/60 source material (does not happen on film)
4) Scan line visibility (again, optimized set up can reduce this to almost nothing).

Given that the above issues are pretty rare or can be dealt with pretty well, unless you've got money to burn, I would not pay 3x as much as an 8" for a 9". A good 8" is a crazy steal these days!

Dave

I think I understand what he meant, and that would be that both 1920x1080I and 1920x1080P both have the same resolution. However, 1080p has twice the information that 1080I has, and that explains the high bandwidth requirement. there's more there with 1080P, and it shows if your able to resolve it.

This is true IF THERE IS MORE THERE. Read my post above. Our sources are 1080p/24 and 1080i/60. There is no more info there to show! Scott is 100% right on on this one. With these sources, 1080i and 1080p have the exact same amount of information.

Like I said, the above statement would be correct if we had 1080p/60 source material, but we don't.

You are correct that the bandwidth requirements of 1080p are higher than 1080i, but that is because you are pushing more redundant information at the PJ.

For instance, 1080p/72 pushed the EXACT same film frame at the PJ 3 times. 1080i/96 only pushes the exact same film frame at the PJ twice. And it does it by pushing half the frame at a time.

For the machine 1080i/96 is less bandwidth than 1080p/72. For the human viewer watching 1080p/24 sourced material, the detail is the same!

Dave

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion, but it's irrelevant anyway. Who cares which 8" PJ does the best job of resolving 1080p. NONE of them do it well and virtually no one runs it. It's like a contest to see whos sh!t stinks the least.

By your own admission, your corner focus is not as good as my G70's, and my corner focus is terrible! How do you come to the conclusion that you Zenith has the most resolving power of the 8" LC PJs?

Those were not meant to be in order of best to worst, just the only PJs I can think of that can get close out of the box. But I agree with you statement that it is irrelevant because none do 1080p good enough.

You are also right that the HD215s suck at corner focus. There focus is very very good in the center, but edge sucks. But, I've been playing around and I've found that the edge is perfectly focused about 3" out from the screen. So, I'm considering building a very mildly curved screen which will give me great focus edge to edge.

As to how I arrived at the conclusions of the list: I have seen my barco at 1080p, I've seen close up pics of vertical one on/one off of a 1208s/2s and XGs at 1080p, so I know what they can do. Of all the 8" PJs I've seen try to do 1080p, these have done it the best (I'm not counting Scott's small picture lab test one tube only experiment either).

I have yet to see a G70 do quite as well and from what a couple EEs that know more than me tell me, the components they use in the G70s are going to be more challenged at 1080p/60 than the others. I put it on the list as a maybe because they look very good and have good resolving tubes, but until I see one do it as well as the others I've seen, I'm in doubt.

Every other PJ I've seen try it out of the box has been pretty bad.

Dave, sometimes your bias overwhelms your common sense and the fanboy in you says some silly things. ;)

Hey, I put the XG on the list and given the noise those things generate, I'm certainly not an XG fanboy! :)

Dave

This is true IF THERE IS MORE THERE. Read my post above. Our sources are 1080p/24 and 1080i/60. There is no more info there to show! Scott is 100% right on on this one. With these sources, 1080i and 1080p have the exact same amount of information.

Like I said, the above statement would be correct if we had 1080p/60 source material, but we don't.

You are correct that the bandwidth requirements of 1080p are higher than 1080i, but that is because you are pushing more redundant information at the PJ.

For instance, 1080p/72 pushed the EXACT same film frame at the PJ 3 times. 1080i/96 only pushes the exact same film frame at the PJ twice. And it does it by pushing half the frame at a time.

For the machine 1080i/96 is less bandwidth than 1080p/72. For the human viewer watching 1080p/24 sourced material, the detail is the same!

Dave

Dave

It's the same information, but you'll have to deinterlace the 1080I signal for it to be equal. And bumping up the refresh rate is not the same as "deinterlacing" the lines.

And as long as those lines are there, it's not the same detail as native 1080P.

If there's not much difference, tell that to the digital guys. It's only after they were able to get to 1080P that they were truly closer to CRT.

The reason 1080 matters to digitals is due to an increase in resolution (detail) from 720p and a reduction in screendoor (smoother image). CRT has been fully resolving 1080 lines long before your mods came along.

And nobody else is mentioning it so I will say it again. You will need a very high gain silver screen to use a crt with the lights on with any level of quality, and you will also need one to not get burn in if your wife will be gaming on it and you will be using the computer desktop applications on it. (Add $1000 to $2000 or even more to your cost unless you can make one yourself or are very fortunate in finding a good used one.) A torus screen is the only thing that will really give you what you are looking for.


Troy

You are also right that the HD215s suck at corner focus. As do whatever I have on my G70. I came to that realization when focusing my Barco 1200. With HD10 lens', I hardly tried and I got really good corner focus, MUCH better corner focus than I've ever achieved with many, many hours of tweaking on my G70.

And all along I thought the bad corner focus on my G70 was just my lack of ability to focus a lens. :D

The reason 1080 matters to digitals is due to an increase in resolution (detail) from 720p and a reduction in screendoor (smoother image)


Duh.. :rolleyes:



http://www.canopus.com/canopus/technology/progressivevsinterlaced.php

"720p and 1080i
Progressively scanned high definition video tends to have a resolution of 1280 by 720 pixels, normally referred to as "720p", where the "p" stands for progressive. Likewise, “1080i” is interlaced video with a frame size of 1920 by 1080 pixels. Interlacing is actually a form of compression. Offsetting the two fields making up a frame by half a frame's duration, halves the total amount of information needed to transmit or store the video. Uncompressed interlaced high definition video generates around a gigabit per second. Without interlacing, the rate would be twice that.


24p


There is a special case of progressive scanning, known as 24p. Twenty-four frames per second sounds very slow, but it's used by some video systems to mimic the frame rate of film. HDV doesn't support 24p directly, but some cameras can emulate it using a technique called "pulldown." Pulldown converts a lower sampled framerate to a higher framerate for display by repeating fields from adjacent frames. Camcorders that emulate 24p take samples at 24 fps, then apply pulldown to produce interlaced 30 fps video to be HDV-compliant.Thus there's really only 24 frames-per-second of distinct information, but the stored video is standard 29.97 frames-per-second interlaced data.


Disadvantages of Interlaced and Progressive
Interlaced video does have some disadvantages in comparison with progressive. It's prone to causing "artifacts", which look like a kind of "comb" effect, especially in slow motion or in still grabs from moving video. They are caused by the relative movement between two fields that make up a single frame. It's a fact of life, though, that 1080p, (1920 by 1080 progressive), which might appear to be the perfect format for high definition video, would generate too much data for current consumer technology, so we might have to wait a while for that. Rest assured that your Canopus technology, which is completely resolution independent, will be able to handle it, if it ever does appear."

I have yet to see a G70 do quite as well and from what a couple EEs that know more than me tell me, the components they use in the G70s are going to be more challenged at 1080p/60 than the others. I put it on the list as a maybe because they look very good and have good resolving tubes, but until I see one do it as well as the others I've seen, I'm in doubt.Again Dave, so what? The components handle what the tubes can handle, so there's really no reason to have more bandwidth. Sounds like Sony made rational component choices to me. :rolleyes: ;)

mp20748

You seem intent on rationalizing your expensive and unnecessary mods. There is nothing worse than a salesman that lies to sell his products.

mp20748

You seem intent on rationalizing your expensive and unnecessary mods. There is nothing worse than a salesman that lies to sell his products.

This has nothing to do with my mods. And FYI, the mods are NOT BEING SOLD.

So for anyone interested, we have suspended the sale of the mods for now, and this have been case for weeks. That was announced on Curt"s site.

So back to the subject... or am I not allowed to participate in this thread because I do mods..

Oh, and the lie is.. Ok, I've been selling these mods four almost five years, and they do nothing..:rolleyes:

This has nothing to do with my mods. And FYI, the mods are NOT BEING SOLD.

So for anyone interested, we have suspended the sale of the mods for now, and this have been case for weeks. That was announced on Curt"s site.

So back to the subject... or am I not allowed to participate in this thread because I do mods.. :rolleyes:

I apologize, and actually value the work you're doing. The point is that with actual content the visibile difference between a good 1080i and 1080p is negligible.

mp20748
You seem intent on rationalizing your expensive and unnecessary mods. There is nothing worse than a salesman that lies to sell his products.

there is something worse, a wet behind the ears newby with 95 posts who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I've never noticed stair stepping or Moire at 1080i 72hz.

The only thing I notice is occasional field lines on bright white highlights. I can live with that, they aren't there very often.

I've never noticed stair stepping or Moire at 1080i 72hz.

You can see it if you get a line at *just* the right angle (I think around 22 degrees). In Serenity there is a space scene with a ship in the upper corner that is just perfect to see the hint of it on.

The only thing I notice is occasional field lines on bright white highlights. I can live with that, they aren't there very often.

I've been preaching the spot shape thing since Tim (Videograbber) schooled me in it. Have you done this yet? It does diminish it some, but I'm to the point that I only see them a *little* on bright white like you say. And very few movies have much of this.

Dave

there is something worse, a wet behind the ears newby with 95 posts who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I think both you guys are being a little harsh. Number of posts does not equal knowledge. Look at me, I've got a bunch and I don't know what I'm talking about. :p
He has been posting for over 1 year, you don't know how long reading or into CRTs before that.

But, I think you guys are talking past each other. I agree that Mike's Marquee mods make the picture better--better colors, better black level, more pop, etc. So they definitely help it. I think what his objection was was saying there is more picture information in 1080p (which is not true with current or any sources on the horizon) which would lead someone to believe they needed a PJ that did 1080p.

Dave

I've been preaching the spot shape thing since Tim (Videograbber) schooled me in it. Have you done this yet? It does diminish it some, but I'm to the point that I only see them a *little* on bright white like you say. And very few movies have much of this.

Dave

Yep. But only with the electronic astig controls - the magnetics are optimised for a round spot.

Mark

Yep. But only with the electronic astig controls - the magnetics are optimised for a round spot.

Mark

You and your fancy NEC adjustments. :p I had to do magnets as the Barco electronic astig does not allow adjustment of the center (that is *supposed* to use the magnetics setting).

Dave

If not much of a difference in 1080i and p, how come do I see a much better PQ out of 960p vs 1080i? Just would like to hear some of you all opinin on this.

If not much of a difference in 1080i and p, how come do I see a much better PQ out of 960p vs 1080i? Just would like to hear some of you all opinin on this.

HD content looks better 960p vs. 1080i? What refresh rate? If you are deinterlacing and downscaling HD content and it looks better, that is very odd. If you are talking about scaled SD content, it is because the scaling to 960 is easier and "problem free". (I sometimes forget with all the HD content now that SD exists :))

Also, if you have not optimized your set up for 1080i, some artifacts will be more appearant.

Be specific on the content and why it looks "much better".

Dave

No HD, I meant SD upconverted. For that matter who can do HD in progressive w/o outboard deinterlacer with $$$$ unless it is OTA via HTPC.

What do you mean with optimized for 1080i? After so long in AV you make me feel like an idiot. {smile}

No HD, I meant SD upconverted. For that matter who can do HD in progressive w/o outboard deinterlacer with $$$$ unless it is OTA via HTPC.

In the 1080i/p discussion, we've been focusing on HD.

For SD, what is doing your scaling, the better the scaler, the better 1080i will look. Many good scalers will do 1080 because they know that is what works with many displays. If it is a not good scaler like the momitsu or something, then it will scale to 960 way easier because it is so much easier of an algorithm.

Oh, You can't without a scaler, but alot of the HTPC guys steal content and do it 1080p via their HTPC, so they are not just doing OTA.

Dave

I only upscale DVD but recently have not watched any SD DVD mainly all in HD.
With 1080 even with HD(1080i@60 hz) out of my SAT HD DVR, I see scanlines, line wiggles, stair stepping and grains. With uped DVD none of those exists neither at 720p nor at 960p @60, 72 hz. I just feel 1080i interlaced lacks. But I am not an expert. It is just an observation.
Now what is 1080i optimization?

No HD, I meant SD upconverted. For that matter who can do HD in progressive w/o outboard deinterlacer with $$$$ unless it is OTA via HTPC.Why, in my and many other people's opinions, doesn't 960p look any better than 720p? Because you only have 480 lines to begin with. There's a limit to how much you can artificially improve the picture by upscaling.

HD and 1080i vs 1080p is an entirely different issue than what you're talking about CaspianM.

Edit: Oops! You and Dave psoted while i was writing.

What do you mean with optimized for 1080i? After so long in AV you make me feel like an idiot. {smile}

What I hinted at in post #74. When you do your astig, don't make the fuzzy dot round. Make it elliptical with a height about 1.33 times the width. Makes the scan lines overlap a bit more (but does not degrade the image) as well as increasing your horizontal resolution so you can get a pretty good vertical one on/one off of the 1920.

Dave

Oh, the mention of 720p did make me think of something for OP.

If you hate interlacing, why not get an 8" for your price and scale everything to 720p?

There was a single blind test that the guys over in the digital area did. They got the former best Marantz 720p DLP (price around $12,000) and the new version of it which is 1080p (and about $20,000 list).

They split a high def 1080i signal and sent it to both PJs. They set both PJs up over and under with each projecting the top half of the image so they could be compared. Which PJ was which was hidden from the people.

For viewing distances of something like 1.5 or 1.6x, none of 40 or so attendees could reliably tell the 720p from the 1080p PJ. They pretty much had to get close enough to see the SDE to know which was which.

Dave

Why, in my and many other people's opinions, doesn't 960p look any better than 720p? Because you only have 480 lines to begin with. There's a limit to how much you can artificially improve the picture by upscaling.

HD and 1080i vs 1080p is an entirely different issue than what you're talking about CaspianM.

Edit: Oops! You and Dave psoted while i was writing.

Who said "960p dosn't/does look better than 720p"?

Microsoft claims that their Xbox 360/HD-DVD add on via VGA connector can put out a native 1080P signal.

The HD-DVD being used is 1920x1080P/60

The posted image is native from that HD-DVD (U-571):


http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1417/hpim1188ps8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

What I hinted at in post #74. When you do your astig, don't make the fuzzy dot round. Make it elliptical with a height about 1.33 times the width. Makes the scan lines overlap a bit more (but does not degrade the image) as well as increasing your horizontal resolution so you can get a pretty good vertical one on/one off of the 1920.

Dave
Is it 1080i or 16x9 optimization?

Why, in my and many other people's opinions, doesn't 960p look any better than 720p? Because you only have 480 lines to begin with. There's a limit to how much you can artificially improve the picture by upscaling.

HD and 1080i vs 1080p is an entirely different issue than what you're talking about CaspianM.

Edit: Oops! You and Dave psoted while i was writing.

Any signal is best driven by or near your display's screen sweet spot resolution whatever that may be. If what you said is true then guys with their hot rod 9" CRT should play DVD in 480p rather that 960p. FWIW I was referring to i vs P mainly 1080i vs p but since I have not tied 1080p I used the 720p and 960p as an example which look cleaner than 1080i.

The HD-DVD being used is 1920x1080P/60

You don't want to use 1080p/60 for film since it will judder. This is a problem with 1080p since a Lumagen or nothing else other than a computer (which is not usable for alot of content) can do 1080p/72.

Dave

Is it 1080i or 16x9 optimization?

It is 1080i because it is shaping the dot to increase the horizontal resolution and dimish scan line appearance. In theory, you dots should always be round regardless of the aspect ratio.

Dave

Any signal is best driven by or near your display's screen sweet spot resolution whatever that may be. If what you said is true then guys with their hot rod 9" CRT should play DVD in 480p rather that 960p. FWIW I was referring to i vs P mainly 1080i vs p but since I have not tied 1080p I used the 720p and 960p as an example which look cleaner than 1080i.

You still have not said what is doing the SD scaling to 960, this can also be why it looks better. As I said, if it is a not good scaler (for instance, a momitsu or something like), I can believe that.

Dave

Gees Dave, your on a roll today.

If what you said is true then guys with their hot rod 9" CRT should play DVD in 480p rather that 960p.

I have no clue what you are saying here. This does not logically follow from anything we have said.

And the topic is HD, we should probably keep on that since who really cares about SD anymore anyway? ;)

Dave

You don't want to use 1080p/60 for film since it will judder. This is a problem with 1080p since a Lumagen or nothing else other than a computer (which is not usable for alot of content) can do 1080p/72.

Dave

Judder.. :confused:

Have you seen this on an Xbox / HD-DVD setup? I know it's not been a problem on the one I have.

But that's not the issue... let's get back on track. a 1080I version of U-571 would be not that much different from a 1080P version of U-571 on a good display device. And for the sake of the judder thing, let's just say they both are at 60hz.

It is 1080i because it is shaping the dot to increase the horizontal resolution and dimish scan line appearance. In theory, you dots should always be round regardless of the aspect ratio.

Dave

I am going to look at the XG to see how it has been done. It has been a while I messed with it.

I have no clue what you are saying here. This does not logically follow from anything we have said.

And the topic is HD, we should probably keep on that since who really cares about SD anymore anyway? ;)

Dave
This was not a reply to your comments.

Judder.. :confused:

Have you seen this on an Xbox / HD-DVD setup? I know it's not been a problem on the one I have.

Yes. It has to judder because the source is 24 frames per second. They get it to 60 by showing the odd frames twice and the even frames three times, like this:
A A B B B C C D D D etc

Since the odd frames are visible for 50% more time, objects in medium motion are very jerky.

The best examples are the pan down at the beginning of Shakespeare in Love and the imperial cruiser in the beginning of Star Wars.

Mark hates judder, I'm sure he can tell you a bunch that will judder. I will try to find some HD DVDs where it is very visible for you.

This is why we want 1080p/72 so each frame is shown 3 times. No judder. Problem is, that is beyond the bandwidth of the Lumagen or any other scaler. Only a PC can do this, but they are not usable for all content.

The Lumagen can do 1080i at 72 or 96 though, so you get to watch the content with no judder if you do 1080i/96!

But that's not the issue... let's get back on track.

Actually it is part of the issue. We want to watch 24 fps source at a multiple of 24. 48 flickers too much for most and there are no products that can do 1080p/72. Big problem!


a 1080I version of U-571 would be not that much different from a 1080P version of U-571 on a good display device. And for the sake of the judder thing, let's just say they both are at 60hz.

OK, for the sake of discussion, lets say 60 Hz (though you don't want to watch movies at that).

Here is what happens with film source like U-571:

The source is 24 frames per second, thus we have to get it to 60. This is done as I mentioned above:
A A B B B C C D D D etc

So, each pass on the CRT face draws the full 1920x1080. For film source, it draws the exact same frame twice if it is odd and three times if it is even. So, it is displaying 60 frames per second, but to do this it is showing the same frame multiple times.

OK, now. Let's show it at 1080i at 60. Using "t" for top field (the odd scan lines) and "b" for the bottom field (the even scan lines) 1080i/60 looks like this:
At Ab Bt Bb Bt Cb Ct Db Dt Db etc

Notice that since it takes two passes to draw a full frame, at 60 Hz, we are only doing 30 frames per second. But it doesn't matter since the source is 24!

The Phosphor does not decay right away, so "At" is still somewhat visible while "Ab" is being drawn between it. Also, your persistence of vision keeps the other field around. Let me show you this, move your hand slowly in front of your face--you see each discreet position. Now move your hand up and down at 60 times per second--you see your hand blurring! This is because the receptors in your eyes are still excited and sending info to your brain even though your hand has actually changed position. Works the same with the last field in interlaced.

Back to refresh rate. If you could do 1080p/72 for your HD cable box, that would be nice, but you can't. So you are stuck with 1080p/60--Judder!

But, you can do 1080i/96. A lumagen (which can't do 1080p/72) has no problem with this. So, now we get:
At Ab At Ab Bt Bb Bt Bb Ct Cb Ct Cb Dt Db Dt Db etc

96 Hz so no flicker and 48 full frames per second, just like they show movies in the theater. A multiple of 24, so no judder!

72 Hz works similarly for 1080i.

The biggest disadvantage of 1080i is artifacts. Most can be overcome to a large degree, but not all. Let's consider the worst interlacing artifact. To me, this is in 1080i video.

HD video is shot at 1080i/60. If you show it at 1080i/60 you are seeing just what was shot. And here is the problem. Unlike film which has its top and bottom field from the exact same instant in time (becuase the source, film, is progressive) the video does not.

Lets say a ball is moving, well the ball will be in position 1 when the top field is captured, but in position 2 when the bottom field is captured 1/60th of a second later. This is a phenomenon known as "motion dependent resolution".

A static image shot at 1080i/60 will look just like 1080p/60 when displayed back. But, objects in motion will drop to half vertical resolution because they are captured at differenct instance of time, so you eye/brain/phosophor does not put them into a whole 1080p.

A scaler sees that an object is in motion on 1080i/60 video content and actually "makes up" the data to fill in the lines for one field when outputting 1080p/60.

This is why many prefer sports at 720p (and why ESPN is 720p). You are really getting 1280x720 60 times per second. 1080i/60 is really 1920x1080 with 30 resolved frames per second for static objects, but when something is in motion, it is 1920x540 at 60 frames per second.

Since most of us are focused on "home theater" and therefore movies, 1080i has few downsides.

Dave

BTW, this is why great 8" machines are such a great deal!

Everyone is so tied up with 1080p and a digital mindset that they don't understand this! If they did, they would know a good 8" is a better PJ than a Pearl and they would cost more!

To give you an idea, I had someone considering a Pearl view my PJ with HD film content at 1080i. He thought it looked much better than the pearl at 1080p and could not see why anyone would not want to pay 1/3 the Pearl price for a better picture!

There are definately upsides to 1080p, but not enough to not take the bargain price of an 8". Yes, I'd do 1080p if I could get a great 1080p for the video we watch, but frankly, it is just not worth paying the extra money for especially since film is 90% of what we watch.

Dave

Notice what MP said...

"But that's not the issue... let's get back on track. a 1080I version of U-571 would be not that much different from a 1080P version of U-571 on a good display device."

I think that means we all agree. I'm also in that group that wouldn't spring 4x the price for a 9" machine when the good 8" is 95% as good. That last 5% is too costly plus hardly anything source wise is really going to show any difference, even if you stick your nose up to the screen to look really hard.

XG, hushbox, moome card, and torus screen. Commence shopping...

Troy

I'm still pretty new on all of this, but I never found out what a torus screen is and what it consists of? Perhaps I can see what all the fuss is about, I see it mentioned quite a bit.

Also, with all the lastest readings on the forums I have been doing, I may just pack up my XG and store it for a while until I can bring that beast out again. Perhaps by then I'll be able to afford a new green tube and do all the other stuff I wanted.

Notice what MP said...

"But that's not the issue... let's get back on track. a 1080I version of U-571 would be not that much different from a 1080P version of U-571 on a good display device."

I think that means we all agree. I'm also in that group that wouldn't spring 4x the price for a 9" machine when the good 8" is 95% as good. That last 5% is too costly plus hardly anything source wise is really going to show any difference, even if you stick your nose up to the screen to look really hard.

XG, hushbox, moome card, and torus screen. Commence shopping...

Troy

1080I on an HTPC is fine for the average 8" CRT, or even a 9" CRT. However, it does nothing for me. I still think it's half the performance of 1080P, or at least it produces half the detail performance of 1080P. And I'm sure we'll agree on that
one..:D

1080P is smoother and more film like. As well can be considered to be sharper, and that's mainly because of it's better detail.


Detail-Definition, the power of 1080P.
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6493/hpim1212ay3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I'm still pretty new on all of this, but I never found out what a torus screen is and what it consists of? Perhaps I can see what all the fuss is about, I see it mentioned quite a bit.

Also, with all the lastest readings on the forums I have been doing, I may just pack up my XG and store it for a while until I can bring that beast out again. Perhaps by then I'll be able to afford a new green tube and do all the other stuff I wanted.

A torus screen is curved (concave). This lets you use higher gain screens (reflect more light) without the negative effects of hotspotting and color shift. Downsides are the loss of corner focus, reduced viewing angles, and more complicated setup.

No...a curved screen reduces hotspotting and color shifting, which allows you to use a higher gain screen. Because more light is reflected off the screen, you can have a much brighter image OR keep the same general brightness as a 1.0 gain screen while lowering the contrast significantly to reduce tube wear. If the screen wasn't curved and you used a high gain screen (3.0+), the middle would be much brighter than the edges and corners and because the CRT has 3 different colored tubes, there would be a color shift. For example, if the red CRT is on the left and the blue is on the right, then the left side of the screen would appear more red and the rights side would appear blue.

The moome card is an input card that has component and DVI inputs so you don't need a transcoder or DAC (digital to analog converter).

So 96hz interlaced would show the gradual dimming of the phosphor between the scanlines to a much lesser degree?
Mathematically, yes. As the refresh rate approaches infinity it would essentially be 1080p. I haven't seen the difference between 1080i60 and 1080i96 though.

Any signal is best driven by or near your display's screen sweet spot resolution whatever that may be. If what you said is true then guys with their hot rod 9" CRT should play DVD in 480p rather that 960p. FWIW I was referring to i vs P mainly 1080i vs p but since I have not tied 1080p I used the 720p and 960p as an example which look cleaner than 1080i.9" PJ guys run 960p because they see scan lines at 720p. The difference in picture quality between 720p and 960p is little if any.

Like I mentioned before, you can improve 480p only so much by upscaling. There's just not that much information to work with.

I don't think anyone is arguing that 1080i doesn't contain all the information of the true 1080p24 source, what MP is arguing and I say too, is 1080i contains all the information PLUS the interlaced too. What I'm complaining about is I get distracted by "i" added bonus features.

MP care to comment? That your feeling too?

EDIT:

Woops, where did that message go? :(

Yep, that's my point exactly. I made it clear that they both are the same resolution, but because of the interlaced lines. The image is not as smooth and sharper in finer detail than P. And it's not a secret that the interlacing creates a distortion.

How can a CRT FP get away with not using a mask?

well I'm not an expert but I think A direct view is mulit-chromatic and the mask keeps the colors seperated and able to be activated by a single electron gun.
CRT FP is mono-chromatic, so each gun only needs to paint 1 color.

well I'm not an expert but I think A direct view is mulit-chromatic and the mask keeps the colors seperated and able to be activated by a single electron gun.
CRT FP is mono-chromatic, so each gun only needs to paint 1 color.

Correct, the mask is there to make sure the three electron beams in a direct view can only "see" their matching phosphor spots.

Because this is separate on a CRT projector and each electron beam has its own tube, the entire tube face is one color of phosphor so there's no need to block the beam from hitting the "other" colors' spots. So subsequently there is no mask.

I think 1080P at 48Hz is awfully tough to beat on this 9500LC...I suppose 1080i at 72Hz would be the same?? I've never tried that one...but I thought as long as the resolution was interlaced, there was no point to trying other refresh rates.

Also, is it harder on a projector to drive more refresh Hz or more res?? I'm always trying to consider this when deciding on how to view material. Or perhaps it's just a combination of the 2?

Ben

I would like to see 1080i96 too. I've only seen 1080i60 and don't like it one bit. Maybe 1080i96 might do the trick. All the shows I watch are that are broadcast at 1080i were filmed at 24 frames. So I could convert to 1080i96, if that does the trick, that'd be nice. But I don't know right now....

Is there a scaler that will display at 1080i96 and 720i96 to take material thats broadcast at 1080i and 720p and reverse the telecine to display at 96hz interlaced?

EDIT:

What is this round pixel thing? Aren't pixels supposed to be square? But when I've searched the crt projection forum threads I see many examples of pixels actually being circular? Whats this about?


Reio,

If you have not seen 1080i on several CRT's, please keep an open mind. Your bias leads you to the conclusion that ONLY 1080p is an acceptable resolution for your needs. I beg to differ and would put my blended 8500's @ 1080i x 60 against your future setup. Are you capable of tuning the projector to extract the maximum it can deliver? Are you going to calibrate the color? What and how you feed the signal, ie. cables, lenght of run with cables, scaler, sdi etc. all play an important role in the final result. How well 3:2 pulldown is implemented will also effect your final picture.

You have a long road ahead, and I see you focused on the wrong issues at this time. Select a projector, buy it, tune it with what you have, and then see what you are willing to accept picture wise. Most important, have fun. :)

MAK

Reio-Ta,

You have a pm from me, please respond asap. Thanks.

You still have not said what is doing the SD scaling to 960, this can also be why it looks better. As I said, if it is a not good scaler (for instance, a momitsu or something like), I can believe that.

Dave

I am using a up convert dvd player (Zenith 318) now but have a HTPC which is set up for 960p. Zenith has good performance with its Faroudja chip.

Never ever do non-multiple scaling..

I agree with this and no where did I advocate multiple scaling.

Dave

Troy, MP is not saying what we are. He was making that statement like he didn't believe it. See this:

I still think it's half the performance of 1080P, or at least it produces half the detail performance of 1080P. And I'm sure we'll agree on that
one..:D

Actually Mike, we don't agree on this one. I guess I typed all that stuff up for nothing. Did you read it.

Please explain how 1080i has half the detail on film content when they show THE EXACT SAME PIXELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




As well can be considered to be sharper, and that's mainly because of it's better detail.

How can this be when they both have the exact same detail? In fact, 1080i is less bandwidth that 1080p, so if anything it is going to be sharper.

You are not making sense here. Please read my long post above or explain what you are trying to say. The detail (pixels) in film at 1080i and film at 1080p is EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!

Dave

I don't think anyone is arguing that 1080i doesn't contain all the information of the true 1080p24 source, what MP is arguing and I say too, is 1080i contains all the information PLUS the interlaced too. What I'm complaining about is I get distracted by "i" added bonus features.

Please list all the models of CRT projectors you have seen 1080i on and what the source was. If it was member's CRTs please list who. Because the only thing I can get from your comments is that you are talking about something you have never ever seen!

Dave

I can see the switching showing as 60 fields interlaced, I can see the scanline gaps very easily, the line seems to be bright, then a gradual decay before the next field to give my "30p" frames. The gradual decay between scanlines is my objection to interlaced. 1080i96 would have a switching time of 60% faster. So 96hz interlaced would show the gradual dimming of the phosphor between the scanlines to a much lesser degree?

Yes, exactly. 96 vs. 60 has two bonuses:
1) You never want to watch film at any refresh rate that is not a multiple of 24 because of the judder, so 96 gets rid of the judder.
2) Yes, each field is refreshed so there is not much decay.

If you optimize the spot shape, you RARELY see the scan lines at 1080i/72. At 1080i/96 they are pretty much gone. I find 1080i/72 quite acceptable as I know Mark does too. But 96 is better for some because of what you just said.

Dave

I think 1080P at 48Hz is awfully tough to beat on this 9500LC...I suppose 1080i at 72Hz would be the same?? I've never tried that one...but I thought as long as the resolution was interlaced, there was no point to trying other refresh rates.

Also, is it harder on a projector to drive more refresh Hz or more res?? I'm always trying to consider this when deciding on how to view material. Or perhaps it's just a combination of the 2?

Ben

It is both The bandwidth requirements of 1080i/96 and 1080p/48 are the same. But most see too much flicker at 48, thus they prefer 72. So, 1080p/72 (if you can even do it) is more bandwidth than 1080i/96.

Dave

I am using a up convert dvd player (Zenith 318) now but have a HTPC which is set up for 960p. Zenith has good performance with its Faroudja chip.

I thought the Zenith was OK for what it was, but it is certainly not great. Something like the Toshiba HD-A1 is quite noticably better.

Dave

What is this round pixel thing? Aren't pixels supposed to be square? But when I've searched the crt projection forum threads I see many examples of pixels actually being circular? Whats this about?

A pixel on a CRT projector is drawn with an electron "beam". A bunch of electrons spiralling toward the face of the CRT, then being redirected to the spot to hit by the deflection yoke. There is no way the make these electrons create a square spot on the tube face. Since it is a "beam" the spot is round. This is why a CRT looks so smooth. The core of the spot for one pixel is brighter then the edges. The edges of two adjacent pixels overlap (slightly on a high end PJ, alot on a low end one) given the smooth look. This can be achieved while still being quite sharp (actually, impressively so in very good PJs).

But, it will not look quite as sharp as a digital because the hard edge of the pixels combined with the space between the pixels creates an artificial sharpness that the source (or real life) does not have. This is why, a 1080p DLP will look very very sharp and impressive, but it won't look like looking out a window whereas a good CRT will look like looking out a window. The good CRT looks more "natural" and film like.

Dave

EDIT:

What is this round pixel thing? Aren't pixels supposed to be square? But when I've searched the crt projection forum threads I see many examples of pixels actually being circular? Whats this about?

Pixels are not square, if you are referring to the pixels in an image. Image pixels do not have dimensions, they are point samples. "pixels" as in digital display elements are usually square or rectangular. CRTs use an electron beam that has a gaussian spot profile. An image is not made up of many little squares(or rectangles), despite how many computer engineers errantly think otherwise. An image is made up of point samples. Unfortuantely, most people tend to think of images as a zillion little rectangles.

But, it will not look quite as sharp as a digital because the hard edge of the pixels combined with the space between the pixels creates an artificial sharpness that the source (or real life) does not have. This is why, a 1080p DLP will look very very sharp and impressive, but it won't look like looking out a window whereas a good CRT will look like looking out a window. The good CRT looks more "natural" and film like.

I agree, though I do point out that there is some degree of subjective preference involved, and this also assumes real images (continuous tone images) rather than generated images like computer text. I personally have similar preferences as Dave, but not everyone does. It is important to keep in mind that 'sharpness' is not always good, and blurriness is not always bad. Sometimes sharpness is actually just the product of noise added to the image due to poor reconstruction (such as what occurs with 1x1 pixel mapping on a display with sharp rectangular image elements).

Troy, MP is not saying what we are. He was making that statement like he didn't believe it. See this:



Actually Mike, we don't agree on this one. I guess I typed all that stuff up for nothing. Did you read it.

Please explain how 1080i has half the detail on film content when they show THE EXACT SAME PIXELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






How can this be when they both have the exact same detail? In fact, 1080i is less bandwidth that 1080p, so if anything it is going to be sharper.

You are not making sense here. Please read my long post above or explain what you are trying to say. The detail (pixels) in film at 1080i and film at 1080p is EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!

Dave

Yes, and I've said several times that they both have the same pixels, but there's other things going on that makes them different. And having the same pixel count is not the same detail. How could a native 1080I have the same detail as a native 1080P when the lines structures are different?

Again, what are we going to do with that interlaced line in 1080I? Isn't it a part of the finished displayed image?

And if you're not going to de-interlace it, where does it go?

And why did the product manufacturers simply play with bumping the refreash rate of 1080I to make it look like 1080P rather than going to full 1080P?

The process of producing 1080I is slower than what's required for 1080P, and as quoted below, that's not a good thing:



"Why 1080p is Better Then 1080i
The short of it is this. Despite the fact that they both have 1,920 x 1,080 resolution but the image that’s conveyed is in an interlaced format. The ‘i’ in ‘1080i’. On CRT monitors, 1080i sources get “painted” on the screen sequentially. The odd numbered line get displayed, followed by the even numbered lines of resolution. All this happens in 1/30th of a second. Progressive-scan formats convey all of the lines of resolution sequentially in a single pass, making a smoother, cleaner image. “Progressive-scan” equals the ‘p’ in ‘1080p’."



"1080i is 1080 horizontal interlaced lines. 1080p is 1080 horizontal progressive lines. Progressive always yields the best quality because it paints the image from top to bottom. Interlaced creates jagged edges and choppy video because it paints odd lines and even lines in alternate passes. This means you get odd lines from one frame and even lines from another frame. So for a given frame, you never have one complete image.

Just remember not all HDTV's support 1080p, but all HDTV's support 1080i."



"Why 1080p is theoretically better than 1080i:
-- In a tube-based television, otherwise known as a CRT, 1080i sources get "painted" on the screen sequentially: The odd-numbered lines of resolution appear on your screen first, followed by the even-numbered lines--all within 1/30 of a second.
-- Progressive-scan formats such as 480p, 720p, and 1080p convey all of the lines of resolution sequentially in a single pass, which makes for a smoother, cleaner image, especially with sports and other motion-intensive content.

As opposed to tubes, microdisplays (DLP, LCoS, and LCD rear-projection) and other fixed-pixel TVs, including plasma and LCD flat-panel, are inherently progressive in nature, so when the incoming source is interlaced, as 1080i is, they convert it to progressive scan for display. Because of this, you'll be hard-pressed to see a difference between 1080i and 1080p on a flat-panel display.

What content is available in 1080p?
-- Today's high-def broadcasts are done in either 1080i or 720p, and there's little or no chance they'll jump to 1080p any time soon because of bandwidth issues.
-- HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs are currently the only sources of 1080p content."



Now, with native 1080p available today (HD-DVD / Blu Ray). Why would I even bother with a 1080I source, if my display is capable of full 1080P native and I'm not trying to de-interlace it?

Now I have both native 1080P source (HD-DVD) and 1080I source (HTPC, etc). And if anyone wanted to see the difference between the two, shoot me a PM.

I think 1080I refreshed higher is a good idea, but only for those who don't have access to native 1080P or de-interlaced 1080I, or have the display to show 1080P.

I would buy your argument if I was not able to see the difference for myself. On my setup, the difference is large.

Those lines are a distortion - period. And on a fully capable display, you would also agree.

Technically isn't some material broadcast in 1080p? Take a show like Numbers on CBS-DT, it's originally in 1080p24 which is telecined to 1080i60. Every bit of 1080p information is there like Dave says, and shown PROPERLY can be shown as 1080p24 just like Blu-ray or HD-DVD. If you say thats not really "1080p" then neither is House M.D. on Fox-DT "720p" either. House is also shot in 1080p24 but shown as 720p60. To get anywhere close to the original source, you have to extract all the duplicate frames and show as 1280x720p24/72.

I'm not saying anything is not 1080P. I have no idea what they are transmitting the HDTV programs in. I'm only speaking of what we get from sources into our BNC's.

And I've said before, the pixels are there, the process of getting it there is different.

Oh, we sort of got off track here. To answer your original request, I think you should not be looking at 1080P. I think both 720P and 1080I are truly fine and should be where you should start out in your CRT purchase. I don't think 1080P is really necessary for very good HDTV. And whatever differences there are between 1080I and 1080P would require a ton of money to truly appreciate.

If you go 1080P there are both HTPC and scalers that you could use. And 1080I is not bad at all, if you're not being a stickler about the image. I use it from my HDTV receiver, and it's fine at 1080I for what I watch from my HDTV receiver.

Keep in mind, my perspective is a little different on these things. I spend countless hours playing around with video sources and devices looking for the best image. And that's why I don't follow too well the theory of this stuff, and why I reach the conclusions that I've posted.

Hell, an 8" CRT was not supposed to do 1080P.

Going from LCD 1080p and then have to settle with CRT 1080i, wow what a difference with sharpness. Whats a person to do?

Why is it that when I do 480i on a CRT I get headaches within about two hours, yet on an lcd and crt set to 480p, I can look at it for over eight hours?

I doubt that statment where you said there will be a large difference in sharpness. Also, I think the reason you may be getting headaches is because the 480i refresh rate on a normal tv is only 60hz. Bump that number up to 72hz or even 96hz and I'm sure your headaches will go away. The Marquee 8500 you are looking at getting won't be able to do 1080p properly. I'm not sure how many if any number of people can tell you an 8'' just simply won't do 1080p justice and you will believe them.

Do you have a CRT monitor for your computer, try it at 60/72/96Hz and see if you still get headaches?

Interesting, not sure why the pc monitor wouldn't hurt your eyes either. But, I'm not completely sure, are crt monitors interlaced? Do you ever during the day look continuously at the screen for a few hours or more?

I've only read bits and pieces of this thread, so if this has already been covered, my apologies.

CRT computer monitors @60Hz give me eye strain and headaches. I prefer and have used LCD monitors for years because of this. However, CRT projectors @60Hz do not bother me in the least. I wouldn't make any decisions based on a computer monitor.

Gees...$3000 will buy you a minty 8" LC, or even a 9"er.

Nup, sorry. It doesn't work that way.

You'll have to do a fair bit of mechanical setup - toeing-in tubes, fine focusing of lenses, and then things like astig - extremely fine motor control needed.

You can plonk down a CRT projector and get ok results....maybe..

But it really needs to be setup properly to make it sing. A G70 would be the most hands off, but you still need to toe-in the tubes and focus the lenses.

I really think a digital may suit better, unless you can get some help.

A CRT is really hands on, unless you're prepared to pay for a setup, and then never dare touch it afterwoods (I usually last 3 days before fiddling after a mate has been around with a colourimeter...).

I do preset the heck out of them here as to the tube magnetics setup. The thing is, the mechanical and convergence do go out of whack even while putting the set into the shipping box, and depending if the set is floor or ceiling mount and in which direction it's facing (E-W, N-S), the astig can/will change due to the earth's magnetic field.

So while it's possible to get a set from me (or anyone else) that will be pretty close out of the box, in order to do 1080p on an 8" set, it needs a complete setup once it's installed in it's final place.

I thought maybe it should be time to revisit this thread of mine here.? WOW, you've been shopping around since January of this year? That's impressive, you must have the patience of a Budhist monk. :D

My room is 110 inches wide and 170 inches long. The 8500 is ~32 inches deep. How much clearance away from the wall do I need? 61 inches wide is a fairly small screen, with no lights on, will I still get good results based on what I described? What does 1200 CRT lumens translate to as real life off the screen lumens on a 1.0 screen?? for this screen size with stock HD8 lenses the tip of the machine will be 90" back + 32" lenght is 122". It will be VERY bright on this size screen.


The DIY 61" wide screen is a stop gap for the screen I really want. When I save up another ~$3,000 on top of the price of the projector, I'll be doing a complete batcave treatment to the bedroom. The walls and ceiling will be covered in black velvet cloth. I'm also going to be putting up a 96" wide 16:9 Stewart 1.5 gain screen. Will that screen and gain be too large for the 8500? Will I have enough throw in a 170 inch long room?yes, on a 96" wide 1.5 gain the lumens at the screen will still be very good. However, the throw distance will be 128", or 160" to the back of the machine. It will be a little tight to the back wall. a set of HD-145 lenses will help here and move the machine forward another foot.

You can plonk down a CRT projector and get ok results....maybe..But it really needs to be setup properly to make it sing. A G70 would be the most hands off, but you still need to toe-in the tubes and focus the lenses. a G70 is "hands-off", are you on drugs? :confused: I have a G70 on my bench right now and it's an electronic nightmare. there's nothing hands-off about it and it's about half as user friendly as a Marquee.

Quote:Originally Posted by Mark_A_W
You can plonk down a CRT projector and get ok results....maybe..But it really needs to be setup properly to make it sing. A G70 would be the most hands off, but you still need to toe-in the tubes and focus the lenses.

a G70 is "hands-off", are you on drugs? I have a G70 on my bench right now and it's an electronic nightmare. there's nothing hands-off about it and it's about half as user friendly as a Marquee.

I've owned a Marquee and I run a G70 right now. The Marquee was easier to setup quickly but the G70 has much more control over the image. The Marquee is simple to work on while the G70 is a bit more work to pull apart. I like both Machines but I have to agree with Mark that the G70 is "hands off" while the Marquee can be a little more involved to setup. On a G70 you can do the entire setup and never pull off the covers.

It's all what you are used to. Personally I would get a Marquee as a first machine due to easier setup and "better" menu structure. However having said that I will not give up My G70 for any Marquee except a MP 9500.

Erik :)

Curt's are all set up? All I need to do is set the convergence? According to Curt they have all the mods to do 1080p. I'm slightly disabled and need a simple 1080p CRT solution. A Marquee 8500 is the simplest 1080p solution? Btw, LC are prone to breaking? My fine motor skills aren't even good enough to use a screw driver. So my wife will have to help me setup convergence. Then she can move back to the couch!:D

I also wanted to get the new Moome HDMI Marquee card. But they're out of stock apparently. :( Someone must have one though?

While I am a BIG proponent of CRT my suggestion to you because of your disabilities is to consider:

1. Purchase a CRT but have a pro come in and set it up for you
OR
2. Purchase a 1080P digital

Because, setting one of these up to do 1080P is not for the faint at heart. It's not a matter of "just" doing the convergence.
While Curt will have it "preset" all that means is that for Curts geographic location, the CPC magnets are set up. Guess what, in order to get the spot size small enough to be able to do 1080P properly from an 8" Marquee, this will all have to be reset at your location (magnetic field as well as surroundings can effect this), along with focus (optical as well as electronic), stigmator, geometry, convergence, focus again and then geometry and convergence again. Then you will have to do a color balance and get the grey scale correct. Do you have a colorimeter?? Are you and your wife ready to undertake in that and have her stick her hands in the PJ to do the CPC's?

If not, get a digital. They are pretty good these days just don't have the black, unch and smoothness of a CRT. The RS1 is a good example at a reasonable price.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but this is not as simple as you think it is.

Terry

Has anyone local to reio-ta invited him over to see their projector(s)? I can't imagine considering a CRT projector for so long without seeing one. You've got to see it to know if you'll like it. Stop reading and go see one. Maybe it's for you, maybe it's not.

reio-ta, we're at opposite ends of California, but if you're ever up in the bay I'd be glad to show you my set-up. Currently I've got 4 working CRT projectors to compare.

When I first became interested in CRT I picked up a Sony 1031 for $100 (anyone remember when those were still worth something?! :) ). I was immediately hooked and I've been tweaking and upgrading ever since... until now. G90 in the house.

Also, please consider the warnings that are coming here from some very experienced people. This statement concerns me:
"I'm slightly disabled and need a simple 1080p CRT solution."

The only simple 1080p CRT solution is to have one professionally installed and calibrated. If you're not a DIY guy and you're not able to pay to have it done right, then CRT FP is not for you. On the other hand, if you enjoy tweaking a little bit, some of us consider setting these up to be FUN! But we're probably more than a little crazy...

-Mark

I'd say that based on your description of your abilities that you could certainly set up a CRT projector with some patience. Starting from scratch with no experience, the learning curve will present a bigger problem than your hands shaking. But other's opinions may vary.

-Mark

I like both Machines but I have to agree with Mark that the G70 is "hands off" while the Marquee can be a little more involved to setup. On a G70 you can do the entire setup and never pull off the covers. If you pull off the covers off a G70 the dam thing won't even power up. :D with it's LC lenses and color filtering a stock G70 will have a small adavantage over a stock 8500. Add a set of MP cards and HD-145's to the 8500 and it's a different story. I don't think the small performace adavantage of a G70 is worth the risk of running something as difficult and likely to need repair as the sony G series IMO.


Personally I would get a Marquee as a first machine due to easier setup and "better" menu structure. However having said that I will not give up My G70 for any Marquee except a MP 9500.
Erik :) A M8500Lc with GT17's would be a no brainer choice over the G70 as well.;)

Draganm,
I was talking to the wife. We're doing a trip to our house in Montana sometime in June. Could I come stop by your place then to have a look at your stuff, when we drive back? Do you offer grayscale tracking, gamma and proper colorimetry calibration? If so, how much do you charge?.
yes of course, stop on by. The gray scale on these is set very well, no colorimeter but when checked against a spyder it was very close. I don't have a 1080P player yet but I can show you 720P from HD-DVD thru a new Moome HDMI card into my 8500 w/stock lenses. That Black machine is hooked up to up-scaled 720p but I don't currently have any HD in the shop.

Do you have any higher resolution pics of it with the case on, showing what it'd look like set up?How will a 8500 look sent 1080p48? Is 1080p24 raw sent to the projector using the HDMI Moome card direct from a Blu-ray player possible? If it has good persistence, it should do fine. i'm not very good with pics, best if you saw it in person. I also don't think any cRT will do 1080/24. 1080/48 yes but you would need a scaler. 1080/60 direct from player should be do-able but I haven't tried it yet since I only have an HD-A2 so far. i'm actually setting up an HDMI card/Blue Ray player on a friends Marquee Wednesday night, so I will have some definite answers on how 1080P works out in a few days.

This whole thread reads like a troll, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Adjusting astig requires placing your hands (or your wife's hands) into a running PJ, within inches of extremely high voltage (~30,000V). DONT do this unless you're sure of what you're doing, and DONT do this if your hands shake! :eek:

I have a couple of suggestions for you, take them for what they're worth.

Disclaimer, if this gets you divorced then don't say I didn't warn you, I'm not but depending on your wife....

I told the younger guys at work the same thing when they were talking about their wives browbeating them. Sometimes you have to be a total dick to her. I don't mean beat her up or anything, just tell her exactly what you are generally holding back. Women will nag the sh!t out of you on a regular basis because many of them just have it in their nature to worry about stuff and it doesn't really bother them to be in a constant state of conflict about stupid stuff. So basically if you're faced with this, save it up a few times and when it's something you care about, let her know what a pain in the ass she's being, really let her have it. She'll cry, be even more of an ass. The art comes in where you figure out the perfect place to stop and start making up, so that you get what you want + get some. We have lost the wife beating ways and they have cut our balls off, time to get them back.

CRT might not be for you. In the same price range you can get decent performance in a digital and you will have none of the issues of a crt and much less issue from her complaining. It's just much easier to suck up a digital into the room without an architect. You think now that the picture is the only thing that counts, but when you add up all the pains in the ass and your disability you might want to rethink it. Don't get me wrong, I love CRT but it might not be for you. I personally am nervous enough with my hands in a crt without them shaking, and I think it will be hard to touch up focus, etc. if you have that problem. Now on the other hand, if you have either lots of time and patience OR money to have it done for you, go for it.

It took me about a year to get her over that "I don't want to watch in the dark" thing, and it's still a little of an issue, I mean you can't see what you're doing so they have a bit of a point. A digital might actually help you here, more brightness = better ambient light performance.

It took me about a year to get her over that "I don't want to watch in the dark" thing, and it's still a little of an issue, I mean you can't see what you're doing so they have a bit of a point. well if any one statement perfectly summed up the complete lack of logic in a Females mind these 2 lines are it. So you can't see what your doing in a pitch-black home theatre, well DUH, the only thing your "supposed to be doing" is watching a movie, not knitting, browsing a colthing catalog, or manicuring your nails. :D
I think the problem here is a lot of folks here on the forum treat their front projector set-up as a TV room and led their wives to think that's it's just like a television , only bigger. It's important to note that a Home theatre is just and ONLY that, it's a theatre. I was lucky enough to acquire an unfinished basement in a new house with 8 foot tall ceilings where I built a dedicated HT. For all you guys trying to cram this into a bedroom or living room, man that's gotta be a tough sell to the wife.:(


Anyway, you can't adjust astig while unplugged, turn it back on, test what the adjustment did. Then repeat? I know that will probably take a long time, but I'd also not like getting shocked to death by ~30,000 volts too!Reio, I have to agree with the other posters here, maybe a CRT is not a good choice for yuo. If you had a dedicated room and could hire a local installer,then I would say it's a fine choice. however if I was in your shoe's and had a problem with fine motor skills, I would simply get onlione and find a nice Plasma TV. Plasma is the closest technology to CRT in a flat-panel direct-view design and there are no bulbs, panels, or chips in the image path. Also, the pic quality and black levels are VERY good IMO. Hang it on the wall in front of your bed and be happy. If someday you get a house with a dedicated HT space then come back and see us, we'll still be here ;)

I
We have lost the wife beating ways and they have cut our balls off, time to get them back.


I'd substitute the words 'male assertiveness' for 'wife beating ways' above, but this is indeed one of the best sentences that I've read here for a long time.:D

One of the things that I've looked for in a g/f is indeed that she can put up with my male ways, including a house full of projectors. This is who I am, this is what I do. There's the door if you don't like it.

To put it somewhat milder: You could be home watching the movies, or in a strip bar getting drunk. What does the wife/g/f prefer?

:D

Thanks Curt, I just indulged the irony of the phrase. Anyone who knows my wife knows the truth is more likely the other way around :eek: The sad thing is that there are probably more unprosecuted husband-beaters than the other way around. I mean who's going to show up at the police station and claim their wife kicked their ass?

I think I was also inspired by my good British friend who was explaining why the Brits call Stella Artois beer 'wife beater' so much that it's almost not referred to as Stella. Apparently it makes you a little violent if you over-indulge. Got to love the English, great sense of humor.

The funny thing is that this whole mentality is why chicks are attracted to bad boys who abuse them (if not physically). So, basically, occasionally give them the bad boy, get what you want, probably get them wet. It's what we call a win-win.

<Ducking>

Dave, I know you're a purist, but does ANY CRT'er really watch in pitch darkness? I don't... There's always some ambient light when I watch. A candle, dim lamp that I leave on a dimmer...
I definitely watch in pitch black always, unless you count reflected light. My ceiling is black my walls and carpet dark. I never thought of myself as a purist. I just figured if your going to put together a little CRT theater the focus is on the screen. The screen itself provides enough light to see your snackies and stuff. I remember when I had a CRT in my apartment with white walls even a candle burning diminished the experience.