Would you consider CRT technology superior to LCD or Plasma? - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 286 Old 05-18-2014, 08:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by P719C1 View Post

The FED displays sounded promising (and to a lesser extent the similar SEDs), offering the best of all worlds except for the lack of multisync capability, but if I recall correctly there were legal and manufacturing issues with them, and the display manufacturers had just invested so much in LCD and plasma technology that they were reluctant to immediately produce something that would put both to shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ID4 View Post

FED spindt can be " multisync", working like CRT in "analog-mode", some links:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2138644&goto=nextnewest
FED Patent:

http://www.google.com/patents/US6559602?hl=en
I'm surprised at people still bring up the FED myth that they would have been CRT quality.

FED needed to do PWM -- essentially tantamount to multiple-pulsing / temporal dithering -- so you would still have plasma-like or DLP-like pixel noise, especially in dark colors. In real CRT tubes, the massive gun allowed the beam spot to have a peak 5000cd/m2 illumination, which allows squeezing a lot of light into ultrashort time periods (aka "low persitence") with adequate average brightness levels. In a proper CRT, the electron dot is so bright that when the electron beam stops scanning (i.e. deflection goes AWOL), it actually is too bright to stare at and burns a hole through the shadow mask. True tube CRT scanning overexposes in high speed video, showing how ultrabright the electron beam dot is, in a real CRT tube. But the tiny microguns in FED couldn't do that, so the persistence is longer (much, much more motion blur than CRT) in order to compensate for the lack of energy behind each pixel. The dimmer pulses had to be sustained via multiple-pulsing, lengthening persistence which increases motion blur, and creating temporal-dithering side effects. Talking to retired researchers who used to play with FED confirms this. Because of the PWM and the inability to do concentrated peak brightness at low single-pulse persistence, FEDs are NOT CRT quality motion. CRTs had fast response and low persistence. Where FED has fast response but high persistence. Which unfortunately creates motion blur (same problem for OLED motion blur). Fast pixel response doesn't fully eliminate motion blur if you still have high persistence. Now, let's talk a proper low-persistence rolling-scan OLED (e.g. like the one Oculus DK2 uses), but capable of <1ms persistence, and we're talking a proper and worthy CRT heir!

FED had temporal noise artifacts (ala plasma/DLP)
FED had high persistence despite fast response
FED had much more motion blur than CRT
Stop spreading the FED myth that it is CRT quality

P.S. Used to own an NEC XG135 CRT projector, DiamondVision CRTs, and many other 21" CRTs

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 286 Old 05-19-2014, 06:13 PM
Member
 
P719C1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Western Hemisphere
Posts: 175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post


I'm surprised at people still bring up the FED myth that they would have been CRT quality.

FED needed to do PWM -- essentially tantamount to multiple-pulsing / temporal dithering -- so you would still have plasma-like or DLP-like pixel noise, especially in dark colors. In real CRT tubes, the massive gun allowed the beam spot to have a peak 5000cd/m2 illumination, which allows squeezing a lot of light into ultrashort time periods (aka "low persitence") with adequate average brightness levels. In a proper CRT, the electron dot is so bright that when the electron beam stops scanning (i.e. deflection goes AWOL), it actually is too bright to stare at and burns a hole through the shadow mask. True tube CRT scanning overexposes in high speed video, showing how ultrabright the electron beam dot is, in a real CRT tube. But the tiny microguns in FED couldn't do that, so the persistence is longer (much, much more motion blur than CRT) in order to compensate for the lack of energy behind each pixel. The dimmer pulses had to be sustained via multiple-pulsing, lengthening persistence which increases motion blur, and creating temporal-dithering side effects. Talking to retired researchers who used to play with FED confirms this. Because of the PWM and the inability to do concentrated peak brightness at low single-pulse persistence, FEDs are NOT CRT quality motion. CRTs had fast response and low persistence. Where FED has fast response but high persistence. Which unfortunately creates motion blur (same problem for OLED motion blur). Fast pixel response doesn't fully eliminate motion blur if you still have high persistence. Now, let's talk a proper low-persistence rolling-scan OLED (e.g. like the one Oculus DK2 uses), but capable of <1ms persistence, and we're talking a proper and worthy CRT heir!

FED had temporal noise artifacts (ala plasma/DLP)
FED had high persistence despite fast response
FED had much more motion blur than CRT
Stop spreading the FED myth that it is CRT quality

P.S. Used to own an NEC XG135 CRT projector, DiamondVision CRTs, and many other 21" CRTs

Oh yeah . . . . I remember this thread!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't temporal noise artifacts invariably unavoidable on digital displays, or anytime any digital video processing comes into the picture?

As far as the tradeoff of phosphor persistence versus temporal light output, I'm sure that could (relatively) easily be worked out through further R&D. Rather than multipulsing, why not step up voltage (approaching the order of CRT voltages) distributed to each electron gun? On that front, power consumption is the only practical limitation I can think of off the top of my head (2 million+ heating elements can't be the most energy-efficient thing in the world I'd imagine).

I'm sure nobody wants to invest in that kind of R&D when they could get similar results from an OLED, just as long as they can develop blue LEDs that will last just long enough for the average consumer in the throw-away society to be placated so by the time the display starts rotting he wants to "upgrade" to the latest model anyway.... At that point it becomes an issue of return on investment.
P719C1 is offline  
post #273 of 286 Old 05-19-2014, 09:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by P719C1 View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't temporal noise artifacts invariably unavoidable on digital displays, or anytime any digital video processing comes into the picture?
Only on per-pixel multiple-pulse-driven digital displays such as plasma, DLP, FED, and any digital display tech that depends on repeated pixel actuation in the same refresh cycle. It depends on how the display is driven. For example, you can avoid temporal noise when driving an OLED, as the pixel can be driven directly to its final color value, actuated once per refresh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P719C1 View Post

why not step up voltage (approaching the order of CRT voltages) distributed to each electron gun?
You'll need to push a lot of power to the pixel, and that's harder to do over tiny row/column wires in a digital display. Especially harder at 4K resolutions with those tinier wires. And high voltage could leak/arc everywhere. It was much simpler with just a single, large electron gun. To get great light output at ultrashort persistences (<1ms) for minimum motion blur (CRT-league) you need to shine the pixel really bright to compensate for the long dark cycle between refreshes.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #274 of 286 Old 05-20-2014, 01:18 PM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Eliminate PWM noise: sit your ass at a comfortable viewing distance.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #275 of 286 Old 05-20-2014, 02:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 35
lol reminds me of trying to convince my friend he shouldn't get a 70" LED for his small living room since the pic will look like crap that close. Bigger isn't always better but that seems to be the prevailing mentality. rolleyes.gif

Floydage is offline  
post #276 of 286 Old 05-21-2014, 04:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post

Eliminate PWM noise: sit your ass at a comfortable viewing distance.
When there exists displays without PWM noise, we don't really want to. biggrin.gif

Being on topic, I have to hand it to CRT here -- CRT has no PWM noise.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #277 of 286 Old 05-21-2014, 06:43 PM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post

When there exists displays without PWM noise, we don't really want to. biggrin.gif

When those displays are all larger than 40 inches, we absolutely do want to.

Unless of course this is you.



In which case, carry on. PWM really is the silliest thing to get upset about with displays of this size. For that matter, I, and I think a lot of other people, would have loved to have actually seen FED or SED displays, PWM "noise" and all, for ourselves. The phosphors should not be significantly different and the delivery method to them the only vector, if its results were anything at all similar to a plasma it would have easily been a better alternative to any LCD.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #278 of 286 Old 05-21-2014, 08:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post

When those displays are all larger than 40 inches, we absolutely do want to.
The newly released OLED displays have no PWM noise. Also, plasma doesn't go 4K like OLED, LCD and E-Cinema projectors, where PWM noise becomes small enough. Some of us hate rainbows, others hate motion blur, others hate flicker, yet other hates the pixel noise. There are variances in our vision sensitivities, that cause different parts of the crowd to be picky about different things. Look at all the plasma-haters versus LCD-haters, etc.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #279 of 286 Old 05-21-2014, 08:38 PM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post

The newly released OLED displays have no PWM noise.

They sure don't. They just have a pricetag five times (or so) higher. FED/SED was mentioned here for the fact that it at least uses phosphors though. To hear you talk it would not have been different from a plasma. I tend to doubt your opinion on that.
Quote:
Also, plasma doesn't go 4K like OLED, LCD and E-Cinema projectors, where PWM noise becomes small enough. Some of us hate rainbows, others hate motion blur, others hate flicker, yet other hates the pixel noise. There are variances in our vision sensitivities, that cause different parts of the crowd to be picky about different things. Look at all the plasma-haters versus LCD-haters, etc.

Yeah... so? Way to drag theme off topic.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #280 of 286 Old 05-24-2014, 08:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post

They sure don't. They just have a pricetag five times (or so) higher. FED/SED was mentioned here for the fact that it at least uses phosphors though. To hear you talk it would not have been different from a plasma. I tend to doubt your opinion on that.
It's not an opinion, but an issue with the early displays. Certainly, if they went through a chance of engineering improvements if the tech wasn't abandoned, who knows -- but all FED displays didn't manage to reach CRT clarity (fact).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post

Yeah... so? Way to drag theme off topic.
Apologies on that. Yeah, let's get back on topic.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #281 of 286 Old 05-26-2014, 08:34 AM
ID4
Member
 
ID4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If no technology is able to equal the performance of the CRT, it is time to return to the CRT, I am very clear.

Do not understand why we have to leave behind a technology far superior to "modern" technologies.

I only see you doing everything possible to meet the standing of a CRT ... there must be a reason ...

We're talking about display technologies, and the key factors can not be the "slim" feature, that is a secondary feature as weight. I will not be carrying all day TV, no sense ignore a technology with such a good performance, and unique features just because it is not "fashion look".

Time to get back to CRT and Develop it.
ID4 is offline  
post #282 of 286 Old 05-26-2014, 08:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 35
"...I am very clear." OK. biggrin.gif

Just forget about anything above 38" widescreen...

Floydage is offline  
post #283 of 286 Old 05-26-2014, 09:06 AM
ID4
Member
 
ID4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floydage View Post

"...I am very clear." OK. biggrin.gif

Just forget about anything above 38" widescreen...

Ok perfect for that, I ONLY need giant screens to see films, and for that the cinema or a good proyector if best suited wink.gif.

I'm very happy with my HD CRT 32 and his perfect picture, my Triniton 22' wide for computing, my CRTs 21/25/29 for retro gaming pleasure. I don't need a GODZILLA screen to enjoy games, TV or Pictures. I only use LCD for reading webs o to program.

I don't have blur, contrast, scaling, refresh, view angle or what you want problems, Why pay for a lager screen and downgrade? only for it's giant and slim? I'm not a stupid consumerist.

We have been using CRT for decades, and had never heard of problems viewing angle, scaling, blur, dinamic-fake contrast, fixed resolutions ... really worth to downgrade? Not for me thanks wink.gif
ID4 is offline  
post #284 of 286 Old 06-02-2014, 08:36 PM
Senior Member
 
ChadThunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Plasma does not have to have any noise at all, in fact it is only through the pursuit of deeper and deeper black levels which that became the standard, of the three plasmas I own and many I have seen my oldest unit the Panasonic 50PH9 gives off the most solid and CRT-like picture even at extremely close distances, and once the DVI module had been installed the graduation of color became even finer than what is possible before.

There came some minor problems with later models from Panasonic, any/most models after 2008 has been heavily influenced by the transfer of technology and 'know-how' from Pioneer

1) Injection of dither around objects in motion
2) Repeating dithering pattern across adjacent frames
3) Most common picture modes have less than 256 levels of color per sub pixel (cinema mode is much more refined)

If the user had ultimate control over all those factors (output bit depth, dither strength/pattern/frequency, persistence vs brightness) and access to higher refresh rates imo CRT would easily had its replacement a long time ago rolleyes.gif
ChadThunder is online now  
post #285 of 286 Old 06-03-2014, 09:36 PM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post

It's not an opinion, but an issue with the early displays.

That they implement PWM, absolutely, is fact.
Quote:
Certainly, if they went through a chance of engineering improvements if the tech wasn't abandoned, who knows -- but all FED displays didn't manage to reach CRT clarity (fact).

The notion that PWM is inherently damaging to the image, is absolutely opinion, and one that I and a lot of people don't share. This isn't anything like, for instance, frame interpolation. I get exactly why you have the opinion you do, you're a gamer. But so am I, I'm already in your world. Your blurbusting is still not good enough for me and I'll take the image on my plasma any day over lightboost when gaming--but then when I game at my plasma I'm not sitting 12" from it. If I'm getting that close then I'm at my Viewsonic CRT. Or my Sony. Or my Mitsubishi. Or my LaCie. At any rate, have you ever seen an FED/SED display in person? I think a lot of us would have preferred to have that opportunity, and it isn't like all this PWM fuss is what kept it from happening, either.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #286 of 286 Old 06-19-2014, 08:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Testing, testing, this is only a test.

Just checking - no posts within this here CRT genre since right before the site change (and yet another!). Was auto-logged off too.

Will see how it goes but I already miss the display of part of the last post in each thread and how it 'markered' when I had read them (i.e. in the forum display table).

Floydage is offline  
Reply Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays

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