Digital is not there yet....by a long shot.... - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 287 Old 09-23-2003, 11:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xanatos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
DARIN
i will grant you this
one thing rptv and front crt projection
have in common is there portability

now with crt projectors you have to go
through a few more hoops than with digital
building a hush box moving around a up
to 200 pound monster learning to tweak
your picture into alignment now and then
but with all the hoops a do it yourself
home theater has whats a few more


XANATOS

IN THE LAND OF HOME THEATER

THE THREE EYED MONSTER IS KING
xanatos is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 12:40 AM
Senior Member
 
kaanage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by RobertWood
We can arbitrarily label one "screendoor" and the other "pixellation". But our eyes have no understanding of that and don't care. What they see in either case is a matrix of horizontal and vertical rows of pixels. The only difference our eyes see is a difference in how pronounced the matrix appears.
You can choose to call it "pixelation" and not "screendoor" in the case of DLP and LCOS if you like. However, it still resembles looking through a screen door. Just a screen door with a finer screen.
I dunno. I thought that the term 'screen door' was coined due to the borders around the pixels. 'Pixellation' is definitely about being able to see the display units individually - not the boundaries.

Anyway, fixed display matrixes still need to be far higher in resolution IMO so that aliasing can acheive the same effect as the dither that CRTs achieve naturally - think of it like a fill ratio of > 100%.

Quote:
Originally posted by smitty
Now I've heard everything.
I agree with MYoung that setting up a CRT is involved rather than difficult. Anyone willing to handle most home handyman jobs can do it easily enough. The misconception is that you need formal, technical training to set one up - where there's a will, there's a way :D.

There is no way that CRT can compete with (most) digital projectors for convenience and flexibility but for sheer image quality (especially factoring in price), CRT wins every time IMO.
kaanage is offline  
post #93 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 01:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
RobertWood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 17,185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by kaanage


Anyway, fixed display matrixes still need to be far higher in resolution IMO so that aliasing can acheive the same effect as the dither that CRTs achieve naturally - think of it like a fill ratio of > 100%.


Many are in agreement with you. Guy Kuo thinks we need a minimum of 1500 horizontal pixels (with DLP) for the image to be smooth enough (and that's at 2x if I remember correctly). My friend Jsaliga is very dissatisfied with XGA panel resolution but is happy with D-ILA (1365x1024). I imagine so is Darin since he's using both D-ILA and 1280x720 DLP.

I respect all these opinions and I realize I'm probably in a small minority when I say this. But I'm being honest, sincere and non-partisan.
My eyes can just barely start to make out the pixellation (I've thrown in the towel and I'll go with your terminology) in text with my XGA DLP at 1.5x.
But pretty much only in text and it's still so hard to see the pixelation that I really have to focus on it to be aware of it.
I'm probably starting to sound like a broken record with this but it all boils down for me to eliminating the distractions. If the color's not right that can be a distraction. If the letterbox bars are fairly prominent that's a distraction.
Temporal dithering is a distraction. So is rainbow. So is misconvergence and loose focus in a 3 gun CRT projector. So are scan lines with a CRT projector.
And, yes, pixellation too can be a distraction. But with my XGA HT1000 image (at 1.5x), pixellation IS NOT a distraction. I'm totally unaware of the pixel grid when watching the movie.

In fact, all the distractions I've experienced in the past have now joined Elvis and left the building.
Except only one. Lack of sufficient detail in low IRE.

Except for that one thing, every aspect of picture quality I desire is provided with this DLP projector.
But then again my CRT projector also has one distraction. It does not have enough light output to make high IRE look as pleasing and natural as it looks with my DLP.
So with only picture quality as a consideration, a choice between the two is a tradeoff of gaining one distraction with either. It's now a wash.

BUT, when I consider size, convenience, ease of placement, warranty and a dozen other factors, for me it's no longer even close.

p.s. notice I said "for me". I didn't say "for everyone".

Bob
RobertWood is offline  
post #94 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 10:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by RobertWood
Except only one. Lack of sufficient detail in low IRE.
I would agree that this is definitely a weakness of current single chip DLPs. When comparing my D-ILA that I just sold (M20 and ordered an SX21) to my Sharp 10k, it is obvious that the dithering in the darks reduces the shadow detail on the 10k. However, the HD2+ chips with an extra dark segment on the colorwheel are reported to reduce this dithering significantly and I'm expecting that shadow detail in these scenes will also improve. We'll see.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #95 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 10:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by darinp
Laughable would be a term I would use for thinking that size and weight at the image is equivalent to size and weight of something that needs to go at the viewer's end.
Weight at the image? What's the weight at the image, Darin? We could talk sizes -- my screen is about 6'x3'. My projector is 2'x'1'x2.5'. The surface area of the front of my projector is 2 sq. feet and the surface area of my screen is 18 sq. feet. Where do you see equivanence?

Quote:

One can go on the floor without getting in the way of optimum viewing positions at all, while the other one cannot unless it is put in front of or under the viewers.
A CRT can be floor mounted without sacrificing optimal viewing seats. I have mine mounted at waist level on a cart angled up a bit and I have a keystone corrected screen. Laying down on my bed it provides a sweet image at about a foot past screen width. I get some serious WOW factor with that FOV. Another option is to mount on a high shelf above the viewers heads. And there's always ceiling mounting.

Quote:

I doubt that anybody thinks a big, loud projector between the viewers and the screen is ideal for most situations where a short throw would allow this, either.


Darin, can you say "hush-box." Say it with me... "hush-box." Good! :) In my case, however, I don't need one. I have two 15dBA 80mm fans in my projector. What kinds of fans are in your projector?

Quote:

In your case at college if you had a digital projector you could use it in your room, use it in the main living area, and take it to other rooms or even outside to show things. Now, are you really going to say that the size and weight of your CRT aren't disadvantages vs a 6 lb digital? Of course your CRT has some advantages, also.
I don't feel the need to be mobile with a projector. I don't cart my sound system around. Why should the video system be any different? Why sacrifice multi-channel sound (which is MUCH less mobile than a floor-mounted video projector) for the ability to be mobile with a video projector? I'll tell you why: because you can, not because it's a particularly good idea for getting a cinematic experience.

Quote:

We aren't comparing CRT front projectors to RPTV rear projection units, but if we were I think it should be pretty obvious to everybody that the RPTV rear projection unit will fit in more american houses in ways that the owners will be happy with than CRT front projectors will. I hope we aren't debating that obvious point.
First, we were talking about the "market" which still mainly consists of RPTVs, so yes, they are included in this. Second, if I can get a CRT setup in a cramped bedroom then I think many homeowners can accomidate one in a considerably larger room. The heaviest CRT FPTVs are in line with the heaviest RPTVs. A conventional RPTV will swallow up a couple feet for its depth. Granted a CRT FPTV will swallow a bit more (with the exception of the smallest CRTs, like what I have), yet it that extra bit of space really critical? And with a ceiling mounted projector you definately have more space than an RPTV, period.

Quote:

BTW: Being able to play 4 way Halo on a big screen would probably make you pretty popular...
Or... setup 4 G90s in a square room -- each ceiling mounted and aiming at the opposite wall. Then do some high resolution multiplayer PC LAN gaming. We'll say Quake III running at 1200p. :D

Quote:

Mike (to the most attractive female): If you think this looks good, let me show you how much better the CRT in my room looks. ;)
Darin, you know know why I'm into this hobby. ;)

- Mike Young
My Clay Animations
My Theater (needs major updating)
My Biz
MYoung is offline  
post #96 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 10:39 AM
Member
 
Raichu11cz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have an unusual set-up. Due to the WAF I have multiple devices to choose from when viewing media. In the livingroom we have a 60" 16x9 Philips HDTV and a Sanyo PLV-Z1 digital projector. We use the HDTV for everyday watching and also because my significant other finds the HTPC+Z1 set-up hard to use. She can just flip channels and Aspect ratios on the TV. We use the Projector for movie viewing parties or Ball games and PPV fights. She also doesnt like to use the projector because she has to pul every blind and drape in the room to get a good picture.
:rolleyes: Then there is the Crt projector I bought last year (sony 1271) This projector is set up in what used to be a spare bedroom. No windows, concrete floors with carpet and navy blue and black on the walls. No WAF at all. This is my private sceening room. Here I can observe and complain and critique about PQ all day long. No one uses this room but me. My wife doesnt care to hear about EE or poor black levels or SDE. Yes the Philips can offer a great PQ far superior to the Z!, but 60" vs 96" ?? So in my situation I have learned that every display has a purpose and can accomadate specific needs. Would everyone love to own a 9" CRT projector that was delivered ISF'd and tuned to your screen size, easy for one person to install, had DVI utilizing an all digital signal path?! Heck yeah. But not everybody has 75K. I find the huge pictue from my Z1 is incredible. Did I have to work to get it to look good yep. Had to build a grey screen several times befor I got the correct shade of grey, and have to work with a fussy HTPC to get a nice smooth detailed picture out of it.
But it is still the envy of all my freinds and family who think a 36" Wega is a huge investment. Raichu

" This my finest sword. If in your journey, you should encounter God: God will be cut." Hattori Hanzo (Sonny Chiba)
Raichu11cz is offline  
post #97 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 10:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Harrisburg, PA USA
Posts: 2,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Bob,

I think what kaanage means between pixelization and screendoor is this (though I admit he hasn't done a good job of explaining it):

1. screendoor = visible grid structure (i.e., spaces between pixels)
2. pixelization = what screendoor does to the projected image (i.e., aliasing, perceived increase in video noise, etc.)

If I'm wrong I'm sure he'll say so, but that's what I got out of his posts. Though if this is wrong then I have no idea what he's differentiating between the two. I'm with you in that they otherwise would be describing the same thing.

David Forbes

Read excerpts, see cover art and more from my novels at www.davidforbes.net.

My theater
David F is offline  
post #98 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 11:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by MYoung
Weight at the image? What's the weight at the image, Darin?
You're joking right? You claim that RPTVs are big and heavy, so the size and weight of CRT front projectors shouldn't matter. Ask 100 people if they would rather have something big and heavy at the image end of the room or near them and their viewing position and you will see that it makes a huge difference to the market.
Quote:

We could talk sizes -- my screen is about 6'x3'. My projector is 2'x'1'x2.5'. The surface area of the front of my projector is 2 sq. feet and the surface area of my screen is 18 sq. feet. Where do you see equivanence?
Whether you like it or not the market does see inconvenience in that and it has a direct effect on both CRT and digital front projector volumes and prices.
Quote:
A CRT can be floor mounted without sacrificing optimal viewing seats.
As I said there are some setups where this doesn't matter. Even you can't think that your statement is true in all situations. I look at different people's houses and rooms to see where/how they can put things and I guarantee you that your statement is false. Might be true in your situation and some others, but it doesn't make it true overall. Not that many people watch from bed. I do, but I use the same projector I use in my theater room and just move it.
Quote:
Darin, can you say "hush-box." Say it with me... "hush-box." Good! :)
Once again, the more things that need to be done, the smaller the market. A floor mounted CRT with a hush-box. I see a lot of wives rejecting that one unless it is a completely dedicated room or just happens to have a layout to support this.
Quote:

I don't feel the need to be mobile with a projector. I don't cart my sound system around. Why should the video system be any different? Why sacrifice multi-channel sound (which is MUCH less mobile than a floor-mounted video projector) for the ability to be mobile with a video projector? I'll tell you why: because you can, not because it's a particularly good idea for getting a cinematic experience.
Tell that to the people who I just showed "Super Speedway" in HD to on a 12' wide screen at a party outside. They were blown away and it was definitely cinematic. There really isn't even a reasonable debate about whether that was more cinematic than your setup as no rational person could say your setup is more cinematic. And yes, I do take a 5.1 sound system that works very well outside. I can move everything by myself, which I cannot/won't do with a CRT.
Quote:

Second, if I can get a CRT setup in a cramped bedroom then I think many homeowners can accomidate one in a considerably larger room.
Can and want to are 2 different things.

Also, you mentioned before that all these advances came along a little too late for CRT. Well, I think everybody would agree that digitals have advanced a lot further than CRTs in the last few years and things cut both ways. CRTs now seem to be missing the migration to digital interfaces like DVI. We have the first DVI dvd players and pretty soon the first HD-PVRs with DVI outputs. I don't think anybody doubts that the HTPC market is much-much smaller than these markets. So, from what I've seen CRTs should have been way more popular 3 or 5 years ago than now or next year.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #99 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 11:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
RobertWood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 17,185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by David F
Bob,

I think what kaanage means between pixelization and screendoor is this (though I admit he hasn't done a good job of explaining it):

1. screendoor = visible grid structure (i.e., spaces between pixels)
2. pixelization = what screendoor does to the projected image (i.e., aliasing, perceived increase in video noise, etc.)

If I'm wrong I'm sure he'll say so, but that's what I got out of his posts. Though if this is wrong then I have no idea what he's differentiating between the two. I'm with you in that they otherwise would be describing the same thing.
David,

Whatever it is and whichever we call it, I'm no longer seeing it.
And for that I'm thankful. :)
RobertWood is offline  
post #100 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 04:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by darinp
You're joking right? You claim that RPTVs are big and heavy, so the size and weight of CRT front projectors shouldn't matter. Ask 100 people if they would rather have something big and heavy at the image end of the room or near them and their viewing position and you will see that it makes a huge difference to the market.
Do you really think that someone with a 200+ lbs. 65" Hi-Def RPTV wouldn't trade for a 150 lbs. 7" CRT FPTV that can throw a 100"+ picture!?

Quote:

Whether you like it or not the market does see inconvenience in that and it has a direct effect on both CRT and digital front projector volumes and prices.
Convenience has a direct effect on projector prices? So does convenience make a projector cost less or more than a more convenient one?

Quote:

I look at different people's houses and rooms to see where/how they can put things and I guarantee you that your statement is false. Might be true in your situation and some others, but it doesn't make it true overall.
Darin, did I say that in all floor mounting setups that is the case? No, I said that a CRT CAN BE floor mounted so that optimal seats are kept. You say my statement is false yet you say it can be true?!

Quote:

Not that many people watch from bed. I do, but I use the same projector I use in my theater room and just move it.
Yeah, and if my roommate wouldn't mind having a projector in the living room I'd have another one out there. I do own 3 of them. Last year I had a dual setup with a CRT in my bedroom and one in my living room. So, in effect, my setup was more convenient than yours. I didn't have to move anything to go from one room to the next. :D

Quote:

Once again, the more things that need to be done, the smaller the market. A floor mounted CRT with a hush-box. I see a lot of wives rejecting that one unless it is a completely dedicated room or just happens to have a layout to support this.
Darin, I'm not making the claim that every house should have a CRT FPTV. What I am saying is that as a hobby, CRT FPTV is not too over the top and may people would enjoy them IF they knew about them. The fact is that people don't know about them.

Quote:

Tell that to the people who I just showed "Super Speedway" in HD to on a 12' wide screen at a party outside. They were blown away and it was definitely cinematic.
I'm sure that was neat to have a big picture, but you couldn't of had very optimal sound. There also had to be some ambient light. It certainly couldn't have swallowed them like a carefully calibrated sound system and a CRT FPTV at 1.5 screen widths in a pitch-black room. There's big pictures and there's pictures that consume you with inky blacks, high contrast, and fluid, 3D picture. Oh and there are big pictures with the inky blacks, high contrast, fluid, 3D image if you talk high gain curved screen with a CRT. Just ask in the high-end forum.

Quote:

And yes, I do take a 5.1 sound system that works very well outside. I can move everything by myself, which I cannot/won't do with a CRT.
What do you do if it rains? :) Now come on, Darin. It cannot be very convenient to have to move 5 speakers, subwoofer, wire, and receiver, and DVD player everytime you wanna have an outdoor screening. If you are going to that length I don't see what your beef is with a couple of hours setting up a CRT and tweaking it for 5 minutes every 6 months.

Quote:

Well, I think everybody would agree that digitals have advanced a lot further than CRTs in the last few years and things cut both ways.
If you are a CRT it's hard to improve on near perfection. In 1995 CRT could do 1080p. The fact is that CRT was, and still is, miles ahead of any source you could play. CRTs made in the mid 80s will do DVD and even HDTV. Sure digitals have advanced, but is that justification enough to spend a lot of money for something that has yet to surpass the benchmark in image quality? Well, maybe it is. I hope it is only after you weighed your options carefully. To me a little convenience is okay to sacrifice for having more money in my pocket and a better picture.

Quote:

CRTs now seem to be missing the migration to digital interfaces like DVI. We have the first DVI dvd players and pretty soon the first HD-PVRs with DVI outputs. I don't think anybody doubts that the HTPC market is much-much smaller than these markets. So, from what I've seen CRTs should have been way more popular 3 or 5 years ago than now or next year.
Leave that to Extron. I think that's being nit-picky. Where there's a will, there's always a way. Case in point -- copy protection on CDs and DVDs. If they alienate CRT FPTVs they will also have to alienate CRT monitors, and there are still high end CRT monitors being made. CRT monitors are legacy. I don't see everyone dumping all CRT monitors for flat-panels tomorrow. The conversion has to be made to analog somewhere. Where that conversion is made is just a detail.

- Mike Young
My Clay Animations
My Theater (needs major updating)
My Biz
MYoung is offline  
post #101 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 05:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by MYoung
Do you really think that someone with a 200+ lbs. 65" Hi-Def RPTV wouldn't trade for a 150 lbs. 7" CRT FPTV that can throw a 100"+ picture!?
Of course. And the market has already proven that more people will keep the big RPTV than switch. You seem to want to put your own value on things and not realize the general market out there. Successful businesses don't do that.
Quote:
Convenience has a direct effect on projector prices? So does convenience make a projector cost less or more than a more convenient one?
Once again, of course. All other things being equal the more convenient product will sell for more and/or have higher volumes. Otherwise, how do you explain that digital currently outsells CRT for the home market by a big margin. I almost forgot, you think it is because people just don't know. The reality is that the big home theater shops could stock both digitals and CRTs and then people would know. However, the digitals would still way outsell the CRTs. That is the main reason that most of them don't stock CRTs anymore or don't stock very many (and also the reasons companies don't make/develop many CRTs).
Quote:
Darin, did I say that in all floor mounting setups that is the case? No, I said that a CRT CAN BE floor mounted so that optimal seats are kept. You say my statement is false yet you say it can be true?!
I said "the other one cannot unless it is put in front of or under the viewers" and your rebuttal was "A CRT can be floor mounted without sacrificing optimal viewing seats." If you meant that some people can floor mount their CRT without sacrificing optimal viewing seats, then of course that is true, as I pretty much already said in my statement. So, is that what you meant? As a general statement I believe it is false, except for the caveats I had already mentioned (putting it in front of or under the viewers).
Quote:
Darin, I'm not making the claim that every house should have a CRT FPTV. What I am saying is that as a hobby, CRT FPTV is not too over the top and may people would enjoy them IF they knew about them. The fact is that people don't know about them.
That applies to all front projectors. However, my experience is that when most people learn about both they choose digital. The exceptions are mostly 2 crowds. Those willing to go to some extra effort to get more image performance and now those people looking for something cheap (pricewise).

I don't think that CRTs are over the top. They are good fits for some people, but not for others. I hold the strong opinion that CRTs are a good fit for less total people than digitals are.
Quote:
I'm sure that was neat to have a big picture, but you couldn't of had very optimal sound. There also had to be some ambient light. It certainly couldn't have swallowed them like a carefully calibrated sound system and a CRT FPTV at 1.5 screen widths in a pitch-black room. There's big pictures and there's pictures that consume you with inky blacks, high contrast, and fluid, 3D picture. Oh and there are big pictures with the inky blacks, high contrast, fluid, 3D image if you talk high gain curved screen with a CRT. Just ask in the high-end forum.
I've actually found that surround sound works much better outside than inside because of the lack of reflections. When everybody turns their head to look for a dog that barked in a movie you have a pretty good idea that things are working. And I'm not sure why you assume there had to be ambient light. There didn't have to be, but there was a party going on, so we didn't turn all the lights inside the house off. I would say the light was about the same as a theater in the US, which means that people did trip over some things. Not everybody prefers no light.

So, are you saying the cinemas in the US aren't cinematic? That seems like quite a stretch to me. I know that people said they felt like they were at the cinema.

And I don't believe there is any way that any home CRT could light up a 12" wide piece of cloth like that.

I've seen multiple CRTs. They looked nice. Never really made me want one enough to pick up the phone and order one, though.
Quote:
What do you do if it rains? :)
It did rain once. We grabbed everything, moved inside, pinned a sheet to hang from the ceiling and played XBOX for a couple of hours.
Quote:
Now come on, Darin. It cannot be very convenient to have to move 5 speakers, subwoofer, wire, and receiver, and DVD player everytime you wanna have an outdoor screening. If you are going to that length I don't see what your beef is with a couple of hours setting up a CRT and tweaking it for 5 minutes every 6 months.
It has nothing to do with the setup time or tweaking for me. In my living room/dining room area it is a no brainer. I could not put a CRT in there and move it out when I want all the home theater stuff out of there. Right now the only thing left would be a screen case next to the ceiling if I wanted to move things out. And a CRT would have to go in the walkway or optimum seating positions. I have about 20' ceilings in the living room and would never consider putting a CRT near the ceiling in my dining room. Plus, I doubt I could watch football with the lights on in the room on my 116" wide screen, as I can now.

In my theater room I've thought about getting a CRT. It would probably save me money in some ways. However, I don't want to do what it would take to put it on the ceiling in there and I don't like having to put projectors where I see them while watching a movie. Plus, I think digitals are getting extremely close.
Quote:
Where there's a will, there's always a way.
And this is where a lot of this stuff boils down. What you say is true, but really on an individual basis. The point I am trying to get across is that convenience is extremely important to consumer markets and profit and loss. If you compare say multiple McDonald's restaurants you will find that some will do much more business than others. And what does it boil down to? Usually convenience (part of location, location, location). If access is changed to where people have to do a U-turn, have trouble getting in and out of there or similar things a profitable place can turn unprofitable overnight. Politicians will put forth all these arguments about people just having to go to a little extra effort, but they are living in a dream world (or just have their own agendas). In the real world not enough people choose to make even a little extra effort when the payoff isn't high enough.

Microsoft tried some of this during the Netscape trial. They claimed that it wasn't much effort for people to deinstall their stuff and install Netscape. I'm sure they had had meetings earlier talking about how all they had to do was make things just a hair harder for the average person to get the competition's product than their product and they would own the market, since that is how things really work out there. However, then they go before the judge and claim that these differences don't matter.

When you get out of school and into some business you will probably see this, if you haven't been exposed to it all at this point. There is a reason that companies that pay attention to these little things end up being more profitable than companies with attitudes like, "Our customers should just do X. It isn't that much harder.".

Okay, all these words and not sure where we got.

I think we can agree that digitals outsell CRTs by a huge margin in the home theater market in September 2003.

I think it is because of the relative advantages that the markets as a whole see in each of the technologies (or really the individual projectors).

You think it is because in general people don't know about CRTs. Since we are talking about digital relative to CRT this would have to be that people know about digitals, but don't know about CRTs. Otherwise it really wouldn't mean anything in a relative sense.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #102 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 06:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
RobertWood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 17,185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
CRT vs Digital

Answer: CRT's are cheap. Digitals are not very cheap.

Next topic: Michelob vs Coors. Any opinions?
RobertWood is offline  
post #103 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jsaliga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 4,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by RobertWood
Next topic: Michelob vs Coors. Any opinions?
Both are swill. :) Try a Samuel Smith's Taddy Porter or Oatmeal Stout when you get a chance.

--Jerome
jsaliga is offline  
post #104 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 06:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
RobertWood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 17,185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by jsaliga
Both are swill. :) Try a Samuel Smith's Taddy Porter or Oatmeal Stout when you get a chance.

--Jerome
I want my cars to be made in Tokyo and my beer to be made in St Louie.
That's the American way.
RobertWood is offline  
post #105 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 07:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jsaliga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 4,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You're only saying that because you have never tried a Samuel Smith's product. It blows any American mass produced brew away. Everyone knows this, Bob. If only you would try an Oatmeal Stout side-by-side with either of those two and the choice would be so obvious to you.

No self-respecting suds-o-phile would even consder Coors or Michelob to be drinkable. C'mon Bob, whatsamatta with you? I'll even bet you don't enjoy your beer in a proper glass. Do you grab any old glass off the shelf? Or, worse yet, does it come out of the sink because it's too much work to reach up to the shelf? Perhaps you take it straight from the can!!?? How can you properly evaluate a brew's performance like that? You heathen!!

--Jerome

:D :D :D
jsaliga is offline  
post #106 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 07:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xanatos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
CAPTAIN MORGAN
WHOOPS ALL:D




XANATOS

IN THE LAND OF HOME THEATER

THE THREE EYED MONSTER IS KING
xanatos is offline  
post #107 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 07:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
RobertWood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 17,185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'll have to admit I haven't had the pleasure. But by George I think I'll just take you up on that and try me one. Don't mind if I do. I've seen old Sam Smith on TV commercials and he does seem like a straight talkin fellow.
RobertWood is offline  
post #108 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 08:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Drew Eckhardt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sunnyvale, CA USA
Posts: 2,674
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally posted by jsaliga
Both are swill. :) Try a Samuel Smith's Taddy Porter or Oatmeal Stout when you get a chance.

--Jerome
I haven't found a comparable porter yet (obviously I'll be trying the GABF medalists this weekend) although I think the Anderson Valley Barney Flats Oatmeal Stout may be a hair better than Sammy's.

It's not just shy sluggin' gorms neemer!

Other favorites include Bridgeport IPA & ESB, Fuller's ESB, Rogue Mocha Porter, and Boulder Beer Hazed and Infused. I like a light (you can see through it) beer in the summer but want a black beer to brighten my winter days.
Drew Eckhardt is offline  
post #109 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 08:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Energeezer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 2,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I didn't know they made beer down there.
Energeezer is offline  
post #110 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 09:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jcmccorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Madison, AL, USA
Posts: 3,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I didn't know there was any other beer besides Guinness...

Cary
jcmccorm is offline  
post #111 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 09:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by darinp
Of course. And the market has already proven that more people will keep the big RPTV than switch. You seem to want to put your own value on things and not realize the general market out there. Successful businesses don't do that.
How many RPTV owners do you think know what an FPTV CRT is? I'd venture to say close to none. I bet if I were to show someone what my projector is capable of, then offer trade for their RPTV, they would most likely take it. If you can't agree with that then I'm afraid we are just going to have to disagree.

Quote:

Once again, of course. All other things being equal the more convenient product will sell for more and/or have higher volumes.
I agree that CRT has been phased out because of lack of convenience. However, I would say that such lack of convenience has been primarily confined to the commercial sector. Businesses prefer more mobile video projection equipment that is more versatile, more capable of big venue presentation, and close to no maintenance. That is the epitome of digital projection right now. Businesses are also the primary consumers of video projection equipment. So, when the businesses got out of CRT front projection, it became unprofitable for manufacturers to make them, even though they were (and still are) the leading technology in video fidelity. The non-commercial primary market for CRTs was never past the level of niche. Pricey processing equipment of that time further compounded the fact that CRT was niche. If digital had never come onto the scene, CRT FPTV would still be a profitable technology and thanks to the multimedia PC I believe that there could have very well been a significant expansion of the consumer-level market. However, now that digital projection has firmly established itself with businesses, many of which do not require crucial image quality, those same models become abundant, as they are in production and being mass produced. I think the individual market follows the commercial market when it comes to front projection. That is precisely why there has been such a lag in digital image quality. Businesses didn't demand it, so such a pursuit was not profitable. Fortunately people have been demanding it and digital has improved quite a lot. But alas, it's still very expensive and CRT is still better when it comes to PQ. For people who have seen the difference and appreciate it (including people who are piss poor and who were lucky to stumble upon it, which illustrates my point), we're still waiting for digital to be ready for prime time.

I still stand by my claim that no one knows about CRT and that if more people knew about it, demand would sky-rocket. Granted not to the level of digital because that is subsidized by big business. But it would be bigger than a niche market, accessible to only the ultra rich who want the best. CRT is simply the best value in home theater right now. What people know is mainly a function of what's advertised. What do we find in the newspaper ads? RPTVs and now even digital FPTVs. What you don't find are the remnants of niche marketed products that are astonishingly still the kings of home theater. For those you gotta do your homework.

- Mike Young
My Clay Animations
My Theater (needs major updating)
My Biz
MYoung is offline  
post #112 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 10:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xanatos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
mike lets keep how good crt projectors
are to ourselves or we will not see a 5,000$
g90

from now on we should only recommend
digital boom box projectors and at the same time horde
crt projectors for ourselves


XANATOS

IN THE LAND OF HOME THEATER

THE THREE EYED MONSTER IS KING
xanatos is offline  
post #113 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 10:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by MYoung
How many RPTV owners do you think know what an FPTV CRT is? I'd venture to say close to none. I bet if I were to show someone what my projector is capable of, then offer trade for their RPTV, they would most likely take it. If you can't agree with that then I'm afraid we are just going to have to disagree.
We will just have to agree to disagree then. I think you would get a lot more:

"I would like to, but ..."

kind of responses than:

"I'll take you up on that offer."

Are you talking about college students? They are a small minority of the market, but you may get a higher percentage of takers in that group.

So, how many people who you've showed your projector to who weren't from this forum now own a FPTV CRT and use it?

Mike,

You may want to ask somebody who actually sells things for a living whether they think the majority would trade an RPTV for a FPTV CRT. They will most likely tell you that you are flat out wrong that even close to half of the RPTV owners would trade you for your setup.
Quote:
What do we find in the newspaper ads? RPTVs and now even digital FPTVs.
And why do we find plasmas and RPTVs mostly? Because the people who place those ads live in the real world where making a profit is the name of the game. They can sell more of those because those are what the majority want. If they could sell FPTV CRTs (even used ones) at a profit and more than pay for the ads (they do that with the current sales), then they would do it. At least somebody would because where there is money somebody will find a way to get it. There just isn't enough money in this for people, because it wouldn't be popular enough even if people did know about them. That also applies to digitals, but does change somewhat as prices get lower and performance improves. So, we do see some ad space for some digitals, but it pales in comparison to plasma and RPTV ad space because of the realities of what people want in their homes.

I think you've let you love of something cloud your thinking.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #114 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 10:18 PM
Senior Member
 
kaanage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by David F
Bob,

I think what kaanage means between pixelization and screendoor is this (though I admit he hasn't done a good job of explaining it):

1. screendoor = visible grid structure (i.e., spaces between pixels)
2. pixelization = what screendoor does to the projected image (i.e., aliasing, perceived increase in video noise, etc.)

If I'm wrong I'm sure he'll say so, but that's what I got out of his posts. Though if this is wrong then I have no idea what he's differentiating between the two. I'm with you in that they otherwise would be describing the same thing.
Eh?
I thought I stated pretty clearly that I IMO screendoor describes a visible dark border around each pixel while pixellation is being able to differentiate the pixels on the display (regardless of whether there is a border or not, although a border makes it much more obvious).

One thing about CRT vs fixed matrix displays is that you can have people sit closer to the screen with a CRT and not see pixellation. With a fixed matrix display, the pixellation may not be visible at the prime seating position but can be quite noticable when only a few feet closer.
kaanage is offline  
post #115 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 10:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
RobertWood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 17,185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A myth is being perpetuated in this debate.
That it's a given that these little projectors are giving those of us who use them an inferior picture. That their only value is in qualities other than picture.

It's just not so. Tonight I got to see the evidence. On the same screen at the same time.

My pulldown hangs from a chain stretched from wall to wall. I lowered it so that half of the CRT projector's image was displayed on the top half of the screen. I got one 4:3 copy of Final Destination 2 playing in my HTPC feeding RGB to the CRT. I shifted and blanked the picture so that the top of the movie picture was being displayed.
Got a 2nd copy of the same movie going in my DVD player and fed 720p DVI to the HT1000 and positioned it to shoot the top of it's image onto the lower half of the screen. The same portion of the same movie picture being displayed one on top of the other.
I paused both DVD's at the same spot. Then I restarted both. And watched for about a half hour. While a little makeshift and certainly not optimal conditions, it did provide a direct comparison for my eyes to judge both at exactly the same time.

You can choose not to accept this if you like. But I have no axe to grind. I have no reason to be biased. I have no reason to lie to you.
Verdict: It was close but overall I honestly liked the DLP picture better.

I'm not saying that you couldn't have a different opinion if you had seen what I just saw. But I very much doubt that you would have come away from this and be thinking there is still a big gap in picture quality. Because there's just not.

Bob
RobertWood is offline  
post #116 of 287 Old 09-24-2003, 11:53 PM
Senior Member
 
kaanage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Nice test, Bob. Can you give us your screen size & seating distance. Perspective is everything.
kaanage is offline  
post #117 of 287 Old 09-25-2003, 12:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Lifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Please explain what was different and what you liked better about the DLP. Also, what CRT projector are you using, and how was it setup (and by who)? Were the lights on or off? How dark is the room? Are all the walls white? What kind of screen are you using? Is a 4:3 DVD of Final Destination (love the "bus" scene) the best thing to compare with? Did you try any high def materiel? I've heard people do comparisons saying DLP looked "just as good", but never in my life have I heard someone claim it looked better. I'm very interested in this.

Personally, I have a very special fondness for grainy and scratched up film. Don't ask why, but I would tell you I like it better than Imax film. But I would never suggest it IS better, or that it looks better from an objective standpoint. I recognize my weird... fetish if you will.

Sean
Lifter is offline  
post #118 of 287 Old 09-25-2003, 12:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by RobertWood
Verdict: It was close but overall I honestly liked the DLP picture better.
Interesting. To my eyes there really hasn't been much doubt that I prefer my Sharp 10k to the HT1000 that I sold. The HT1000 is nice IMO, but my 10k seems nicer.

To be fair, was the part of the image from the HT1000 brighter? If so, that could explain some things. Your iris wouldn't be able to adjust and take advantage of the deeper blacks on the CRT if it was next to a brighter image.

Guy has already mentioned that the ANSI CR edge of the HT1000 over his CRT is noticable in the non-darkest scenes. So, it sounds like the CRT has the greyer blacks most of the time, although not noticably bad when not compared to the HT1000. And that is with a projector that is under 1800:1 CR even with a color correcting filter. Definitely not the best for digital if you count the HD2+ projectors about to be released at over 3000:1 (Sharp is claiming 5000:1 on the 12k, but probably won't be there calibrated). I got about 1400:1 on my HT1000 and 1750:1 on my 10k.

When digital finally passes the 8500:1 or so that William Phelps measured on his calibrated G90 I wonder what people will say about the calibrated CRT having greyer blacks across the whole spectrum (assuming the digital is filtered to bring its white level down to the CRT white level). I do realize that CRTs will hold some other image advantages over single chip DLPs at that point, though.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #119 of 287 Old 09-25-2003, 03:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mp20748's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally posted by Lifter
Please explain what was different and what you liked better about the DLP. Also, what CRT projector are you using, and how was it setup (and by who)? Were the lights on or off? How dark is the room? Are all the walls white? What kind of screen are you using?
and what was the beverage that was being consumed?

It's all about the performance... Got Marquee!

 

High Performance Marquee Video chain modifications.  Now available!

mp20748 is offline  
post #120 of 287 Old 09-25-2003, 06:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Harrisburg, PA USA
Posts: 2,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
I bet if I were to show someone what my projector is capable of, then offer trade for their RPTV, they would most likely take it.
And you would be wrong. I have a CRT in my home (Darin's right, college students don't count), and I've had dozens of people over to see it, many who make a lot more money than me and who have much larger houses than me with plenty of room for a front projector setup. Guess how many LOVED the picture? ALL OF THEM. Guess how many asked about setting one up at their house? NONE OF THEM. Guess how many of them have RPTVs? MOST OF THEM.

Quote:
I thought I stated pretty clearly that I IMO screendoor describes a visible dark border around each pixel while pixellation is being able to differentiate the pixels on the display (regardless of whether there is a border or not, although a border makes it much more obvious).
Then I'm with Robert in that this statement makes no sense and is in fact contradictory. The only way to "differentiate the pixels on the display" is if you can in fact see the border, which you've defined differently as screen door. If you can't see the border of a pixel you can differentiate them!

David Forbes

Read excerpts, see cover art and more from my novels at www.davidforbes.net.

My theater
David F is offline  
Closed Thread CRT Projectors

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off