And many don't realize that the larger the screen, the lesser the picture quality. At the University I work at, we have a 55 inch LG set up in our office's conference room. While there are larger screens, will not deny that I was initially floored by the size of the set. But that was the extent of it.
I immediately noticed that the larger screen had a softer picture at 1080p resolution (after experimenting with the user adjustments) even compared to my 32 inch LCD at home which, BTW, is only 720p. Am I correct to assume that there is a law of physics involved and the screen becoming larger therefore results in lesser density between pixels and/or increased pixel size and therefore past a certain screen size, the picture begins to actually lose the some of that higher resolution (i.e., like a zoom effect)?
That is a problem with too big a screen which many don't realize exits.
And compared to CRT, there is no depth in the picture at all, no matter what the size or the technology. For example, after I adjusted the settings we caught a few minutes of "Ellen". The picture was exactly as advertised - FLAT! All objects appeared on top of each other with no dimensional feel whatsoever. I'm at home this week and when I tuned in the same program on my Sony KD34XBR960 that wasn't the case - while not three dimensional, there was an appearance of depth which made the picture more natural.
And, of course, the picture is not natural looking on LCDs in general than they are on CRT. It's more like a pastel-type postcard. In addition, although the picture in super sharp, all the LCD's I've seen lack the precise detail that our Sony displays - one can see some facial hairs or blemishes on the Sony which appear smooth on those LCDs.
I would not knock LCD or any other flat screen set - they do offer gorgeous pictures in their own rights - it's just that I resented in it's sales hype, the industry, began touting CRT as old and inferior when flat screens began to become affordable. Of course, most only having experienced standard definition on a 4x3 set, did not know any better.
The industry is misleading the public again today, trying to get consumers to replace the flat screen sets they purchased just a few years ago by touting the "advantages" of LED lighting, higher refresh rates, contrast ratios, etc. Those "improvements" have little if any effect on picture quality since the visual comparisons are exaggerated for demonstration purposes and what can be measured on laboratory equipment cannot be seen by the human eye.
Though it's screen size is limited, CRT might be older but it is still definitely the superior technology. Again, not knocking flat screens, but do feel the need to make that point on behalf of us who get strange looks from people wondering how we could ever be happy watching those bulky, heavier sets.