A Salute To The Humble Direct View Tube TV. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 261 Old 10-09-2004, 08:22 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 265
In helping some people put together AV systems I've been spending even more time than usual spinning my reference DVDs and watching Hi-Def on all manner of displays.

It was a day of auditioning front projectors that it hit me. I'd love a projector. How many HT aficionados, it they had the space and means, wouldn't enjoy owning a good one? I was sitting there watching the superb transfer of Return Of The Jedi on a $20,000 Sim2 projector, in awe of the image size, the clarity, the detail, and the immersive cinema experience that only a projector truly provides. And yet, it wasn't too long before I actually started noticing a craving the projector, for all it's glory, wasn't quite satisfying. I have a Panasonic plasma and I'm used to the incredibly vivid, dense, rich, tactile images that a phosphor-based, emissive light technology produces (direct view tube sets included). The projector, like all the projectors I've seen, did it's thing wonderfully, but it still couldn't provide the qualities of aliveness and density that I get at home.

Which brings me to CRT direct views. Like my plasma, they offer that exquisite intensity (and I'm not talking cranked picture levels), tightness and density to the image that you just don't normal get with projectors.

Also, as impressively sharp and bright as the latest LCD and DLP-based displays can look, and I am a sucker for their talents in that respect, direct comparisons with a CRT direct view really show what I miss from those other technologies. For instance, I recently viewed "Alien"on the Samsung DLP, then next to it the Sony WEGA LCD RPTV, and then next to it a Sony Widescreen direct view (the 955). On their own, the DLP and LCD were quite impressive (excepting the LCD's performance in black level, in particular). The clarity was there, and I had an impression of depth to the images as well. But once compared directly to the CRT, the CRT clearly produced a deeper, more sculpturally rounded, more "weighty" image. The CRT image revealed the other technologies as looking flatter, more like layers of sharp images, whereas the CRT brought out the feeling of distance, the spatial relationship between each object on screen. The deep blacks, the sheer density of the CRT image made the machinery of the Nostromo in Alien appear reach-in-and-touch-it "heavy" and tactile. Whereas the same images on the DLP/LCD have a lighter, more projected, flattened and not-really-substantial quality.

So, I was reminded once again of how the humble CRT direct view still exhibits qualities that, while in some parameters might be exceeded by new technologies, still rocks, and still provide certain aspects of picture quality that are hard to come by anywhere else.

Yeah, they aren't much size-wise, but you gotta admire what they can do.

Cheers all,
R Harkness is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 261 Old 10-09-2004, 09:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
tennberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
R:

Thank you for your ode to the CRT. It was much appreciated. I currently own a Sony 34XBR960 direct view CRT and know that its picture beats anything currently selling at Best Buy, Circuit City, or Tweeter. Sure, I could have gone larger, but I would have sacrificed picture quality, and that was something I was not willing to give up.

I believe this is why a true "CRT killer" is years away. It is sad to see both manufacturers like Sony and Panasonic and retailers like Best Buy and Tweeter trying to kill off the CRT while their websites and retail locations are filled to the brim with LCDs and plasmas. It is also sad for me to see consumers buying into LCDs and plasmas, thus giving both the manufacturers and retailers less incentive to push CRT. I can only hope that once my current set is on its last leg, I will have a comparable, if not better, technology waiting for me.
tennberg is offline  
post #3 of 261 Old 10-09-2004, 09:35 PM
Member
 
Balcerak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Same here. I'm hoping in 5 years a new technology will be available that is light, cheap and gorgeous. Until then I'll watch my tube.
Balcerak is offline  
post #4 of 261 Old 10-09-2004, 09:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BASHERS33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I originally was going to get an LCD. I have never owned ANY tv bigger than 21 inches. So I wasn't sure which way to go with anything. But I decided to get the 30 inch Sony Wega widescreen CRT instead. I have not even plugged it in yet at home. So I am one person who didn't decide to buy LCD. :) Depending on where I put it, I may be tempted to get the 34 inch. But I think since it is going to basically be a bedroom type tv, I should stick with 30.

Got Talk (general discussion forum - someone add product reviews)

Got Zelda
BASHERS33 is offline  
post #5 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 12:08 AM
Member
 
timmernator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northeast GA
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Dead on, Hark!

I returned a Panasonic PT43LC14 (LCDRP) this weekend and picked up a Sony 34XS955 for $300 less.

Why? Idiot me, an editor who views HD programming on a 21" Ikegami monitor at work all day, took a week (!) to figure out that a tube was the only way to go.

Yeah, DVDs at 43" at 7 feet really was similar to being in a movie theater, but I felt like I was at the ball game today...
timmernator is offline  
post #6 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 04:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
specgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Tennberg, Your dreams should come true in early 2006, Toshiba and Canon have jointly developed SED a super thin CRT screen 40in and up with lifelike images crystal clear picture which will use less energy and be cheaper to produce they have been working on this sed since 1997. This hdtv will make lcd, dlp, plasma obsolete. I was gonna buy a hdtv this year but now with I will wait . Check the canon and toshiba sites for more info and sit tight.
specgeorge is offline  
post #7 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 04:55 PM
Member
 
Geise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Error
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by specgeorge
Tennberg, Your dreams should come true in early 2006, Toshiba and Canon have jointly developed SED a super thin CRT screen 40in and up with lifelike images crystal clear picture which will use less energy and be cheaper to produce they have been working on this sed since 1997. This hdtv will make lcd, dlp, plasma obsolete. I was gonna buy a hdtv this year but now with I will wait . Check the canon and toshiba sites for more info and sit tight.
That looks like a fixed resolution technology to me...is there any info on whether that's so? I HATE fixed resolution displays...they are a step backward, not a step forward.

All posts and no replies make Geise a dull boy.
Geise is offline  
post #8 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 06:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
specgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ive never heard of fixed resolution. As i stated you can check the canon & toshiba sites for more info. Ive been thrilled since i have read about it .
specgeorge is offline  
post #9 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 06:11 PM
Member
 
Geise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Error
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This has got to be the best thing since sliced bread, but it won't matter much if the displays cost thousands and thousands of dollars...anyway, I did some research and from the looks of things, this will not be a fixed resolution deisplay. I wonder if sed's will support true interlacing aswell...

All posts and no replies make Geise a dull boy.
Geise is offline  
post #10 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 06:27 PM
Member
 
lahaina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Balcerak
Same here. I'm hoping in 5 years a new technology will be available that is light, cheap and gorgeous. Until then I'll watch my tube.
Yep. I had $4-6K+ burning a hole in my pocket. Every time i zeroed in on the DLP, LCoS, plasma--take your pick--I'd read through reviews and postings about picture tilt, black levels, manufacturing defects, constant firmware updates, burn-in, rainbows, poor SD performance etc. etc. etc. Got scared away and ended up with a Sony KD-36XP955 (4:3 CRT w/16:9 HDTV rendered with black bars). I am sure it will be a different story entirely in 5 years when I will shop again.
lahaina is offline  
post #11 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 07:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally posted by tennberg
R:

It is sad to see both manufacturers like Sony and Panasonic and retailers like Best Buy and Tweeter trying to kill off the CRT while their websites and retail locations are filled to the brim with LCDs and plasmas. It is also sad for me to see consumers buying into LCDs and plasmas, thus giving both the manufacturers and retailers less incentive to push CRT.
I guess that would put me off your Christmas Card list. (See my "signature line" below). ;)

But your point is well taken and in general I agree. CRT sets the benchmark that new technologies should at least be reaching for. It would be a bummer to see the benchmark actually leave the scene before most of those technologies caught up. (And then consumers, forgetting what they are missing, just accept deficiencies as the new standard. Shudder.)

But I am quite optimistic about the new technologies. DLP, LCD and Plasma are making strides in black levels, almost with every generation, so it's a message the manufacturers are trying.

I bought my Panasonic plasma because they were the first to get into CRT territory black levels. So my purchase has been "all good" in my case: it looks pretty much like 42" of flat, perfectly focused, geometrically perfect CRT-like image quality. Even as a contrast/black level fanatic I truly don't miss a single thing about my Panasonic Tau direct view.

So don't despair too much. The future may be here sooner than you think :)

But I find it particularly revealing and educational demoing a properly calibrated CRT next to a DLP or LCD display.
R Harkness is online now  
post #12 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 07:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
specgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
geise Thats what I thought best thing since sliced bread. I wouldnt worry about the seds costing thousands and thousands. Canon & toshiba say they can produce this baby cheaper. Look at the prices of the plasmas,dlps,lcds their prices have dropped in half in the past few years. alright their still in the thousands. By 2006 they should be even cheaper when the seds come out. could you imagine getting a 40in sed for a couple of thousand, wide wiewing angle, no burn in, thin flat panel, crt with life like images. There was a picture of a sed on display a couple of days ago in tokyo in the daily news. The picture was unbeliveable. Toshiba says commerical sets will be made in 2005 and in 2006 they will start mass production for retail.





there
specgeorge is offline  
post #13 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 07:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 197
R Harkness: Do you think here is any chance that SED can combine the best attributes of Plasma and Direct-view CRT? That is the only technology down the road that has me hoping. One other question: many say that the ED Panny has such a great picture because it's line structure is so close to DVD. If someone attempted to do the same with 34-inch Direct-view and more or less made an always 480p picture, is it possible that DVDs and SD would also look good on it?
Artwood is offline  
post #14 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 07:48 PM
Member
 
Geise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Error
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Artwood
R Harkness: Do you think here is any chance that SED can combine the best attributes of Plasma and Direct-view CRT?
The best attribute of plasma tvs is that they're flat, and SED is a flat panel technology. Other than that, what other attributes does a plasma have that a crt doesn't have. :confused:

All posts and no replies make Geise a dull boy.
Geise is offline  
post #15 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 07:56 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally posted by Artwood
R Harkness: Do you think here is any chance that SED can combine the best attributes of Plasma and Direct-view CRT?
I'm no expert on SED, but from what I've read (probably the same as you) it really does seem to be poised to do just that: CRT with the advantages of plasma. I'm extremely excited about SED not only because of the promise in it's picture quality, but in the type of picture quality it will produce. While rear projected/reflected technology like DLP and LCD will no doubt continue to make strides in black levels and viewing angles, I'm not sure the technology doesn't limit them in those regards. I really don't care for the shifting luminance of those displays. That's one reason I prefer CRT direct views and plasma - their are direct emission technologies that have steady, even illumination no matter where you sit. SED promises the same benefits.

Quote:
One other question: many say that the ED Panny has such a great picture because it's line structure is so close to DVD. If someone attempted to do the same with 34-inch Direct-view and more or less made an always 480p picture, is it possible that DVDs and SD would also look good on it?
I'm not totally sure I understand your question. Do you mean if a direct view were made "DVD" resolution, rather than a higher resolution "HD" display, would DVDs and SD likely look better? I don't know. For plasmas, it's not necessarily a pixel count thing, it's often the quality of the scaler. I've seen ED plasmas that look so-so with SD, and that have some troubles with DVD. I do see many digital wide screen direct views struggling somewhat with lower resolution SD signals, and even showing processing noise with DVD. However, I don't know that it's a resolution thing per se; more probably that the manufacturers are not putting as much effort into the displays up-ressing capabilities. It's like regular cable is an afterthought to those manufacturing some digital widescreen sets.

Sorry I can't answer your question any better.
R Harkness is online now  
post #16 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 08:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
specgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
R Harkness thanks for echoing my excitement about seds. I seem to have gotten the ball rolling on my first posting. I accually read about seds on the canon site last year they were still having some problems. toshiba and canon got them solved and are going to start commerical production in 2005. Imagine a flat panel lightweight crt 40in and up. I cant wait.
specgeorge is offline  
post #17 of 261 Old 10-10-2004, 08:47 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally posted by Geise
The best attribute of plasma tvs is that they're flat, and SED is a flat panel technology. Other than that, what other attributes does a plasma have that a crt doesn't have. :confused:
Depends on the CRT (e.g. Rear Projection or Direct View). CRTs still do the deepest black levels, rendering the very last steps of the gray scale. Plasma currently is getting closer, but no cigar yet. CRT is also capable of higher resolution (this can be tricky: CRT lines of resolution are not directly equivalent to pixel resolution, so in some cases a CRT with a higher res spec than a fixed pixel device isn't necessarily giving more resolution) . But big-gunned RPTVs and the Sony super fine pitch CRTs can display more resolution than any plasma (that I'm aware of).

Now, to your question of what it is Plasma offers over CRT:

CRT: Will always suffer some degree of Geometric distortion.

Plasma: Perfect screen geometry, all the time, corner to corner. After living with a plasma I notice geometric distortion much more in CRT sets.

CRTs struggle with uneven light output (especially RPTVs, but direct views as well).

Plasma does not - it has perfectly even illumination, every inch. After living with a plasma I have become more sensitive to uneven illumination in CRT as well.

CRTs have difficulty maintaining focus across the entire screen. Not plasma.

Plasma has perfect focus, every inch of the screen. Text and details remain perfectly sharp no matter where they are on screen. Also, there is no chance of color misalignment at all (no "unfocused guns" as on a CRT RPTV or color bleed in a direct view).

You can set plasma brightness/contrast settings higher than CRT devices, because plasma does not suffer color blooming, nor does it crush white detail quickly, as CRT does. Therefore you can have a more vibrant picture without being held back by those characteristics of CRT technology.

Flicker: Plasma has little to no visible flicker. Whereas CRTs can still exhibit quite a bit. In fact, I'm astonished how much flicker I see in CRTs. Our peripheral vision is much more sensitive to motion, and hence flicker too, than our forward vision. When I stand in front of a bunch of CRTs, especially CRT RPTVs, looking at one display, all the adjacent CRT displays flicker madly in my peripheral vision. It's like a wall of flicker. Whereas the plasmas do not do this - they remain smooth, even when I "observe" them in the peripheral vision test.

Life Span: Some of the very latest plasmas have been re-engineered for extremely long life span to half brightness (which is when you'd likely want to replace it). 60,000 is getting standard, but I was told by a Pioneer rep that their latest panel is estimated up to 80 or 100k hours use, which is beyond the life-span of any CRT I've heard of. (Not that anyone is going to keep the thing that long).

Certain plasma manufacturers (like Pioneer) now claim more colors and a higher standard of color accuracy than available from most CRTs.

Plasma: not affected by magnetic fields. So you can use any speaker you want near them for HT.

Last but not least to me: CRT emits an ever-present high-pitched squeal - the horizontal frequency sweep of the raster scan, I believe. A lot of people don't hear it because A. They are so used to it or B. They just can't hear above 10K. But it is quite loud and has always bothered me. I can tell if a TV is on, with the sound turned down, even from another room because of this noise. Plasma is gloriously free of that high-pitched ringing.

None of that diminishes the fact that CRT's strengths often rise above it's deficiencies to produce stunning pictures. This is, after all, supposed to be a paean to CRT thread.
R Harkness is online now  
post #18 of 261 Old 10-11-2004, 07:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
WOLVERNOLE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: DUMFRIES, VA USA
Posts: 2,544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Yea, I own a Sony 50XBR800 (the GW II) and love it for movies, especially action stuff w/ my 5.1 system- - not "state-of-the-art" but pretty good, and then have a Sony KV-27HS420 direct-view CRT for a bedroom. I feel that this is a good balance when I want to watch some ugly SD golf tournaments, and nothing can be done to make SD and golf tournaments truly enjoyable on a 50" LCD...so I hit the 27" 4:3 direct-view and it is about the same as the best analog in that regard.:cool:
WOLVERNOLE is offline  
post #19 of 261 Old 10-11-2004, 09:10 AM
Member
 
Geise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Error
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by R Harkness
Depends on the CRT (e.g. Rear Projection or Direct View). CRTs still do the deepest black levels, rendering the very last steps of the gray scale. Plasma currently is getting closer, but no cigar yet. CRT is also capable of higher resolution (this can be tricky: CRT lines of resolution are not directly equivalent to pixel resolution, so in some cases a CRT with a higher res spec than a fixed pixel device isn't necessarily giving more resolution) . But big-gunned RPTVs and the Sony super fine pitch CRTs can display more resolution than any plasma (that I'm aware of).

Now, to your question of what it is Plasma offers over CRT:

CRT: Will always suffer some degree of Geometric distortion.

Plasma: Perfect screen geometry, all the time, corner to corner. After living with a plasma I notice geometric distortion much more in CRT sets.

CRTs struggle with uneven light output (especially RPTVs, but direct views as well).

Plasma does not - it has perfectly even illumination, every inch. After living with a plasma I have become more sensitive to uneven illumination in CRT as well.

CRTs have difficulty maintaining focus across the entire screen. Not plasma.

Plasma has perfect focus, every inch of the screen. Text and details remain perfectly sharp no matter where they are on screen. Also, there is no chance of color misalignment at all (no "unfocused guns" as on a CRT RPTV or color bleed in a direct view).

You can set plasma brightness/contrast settings higher than CRT devices, because plasma does not suffer color blooming, nor does it crush white detail quickly, as CRT does. Therefore you can have a more vibrant picture without being held back by those characteristics of CRT technology.

Flicker: Plasma has little to no visible flicker. Whereas CRTs can still exhibit quite a bit. In fact, I'm astonished how much flicker I see in CRTs. Our peripheral vision is much more sensitive to motion, and hence flicker too, than our forward vision. When I stand in front of a bunch of CRTs, especially CRT RPTVs, looking at one display, all the adjacent CRT displays flicker madly in my peripheral vision. It's like a wall of flicker. Whereas the plasmas do not do this - they remain smooth, even when I "observe" them in the peripheral vision test.

Life Span: Some of the very latest plasmas have been re-engineered for extremely long life span to half brightness (which is when you'd likely want to replace it). 60,000 is getting standard, but I was told by a Pioneer rep that their latest panel is estimated up to 80 or 100k hours use, which is beyond the life-span of any CRT I've heard of. (Not that anyone is going to keep the thing that long).

Certain plasma manufacturers (like Pioneer) now claim more colors and a higher standard of color accuracy than available from most CRTs.

Plasma: not affected by magnetic fields. So you can use any speaker you want near them for HT.

Last but not least to me: CRT emits an ever-present high-pitched squeal - the horizontal frequency sweep of the raster scan, I believe. A lot of people don't hear it because A. They are so used to it or B. They just can't hear above 10K. But it is quite loud and has always bothered me. I can tell if a TV is on, with the sound turned down, even from another room because of this noise. Plasma is gloriously free of that high-pitched ringing.

None of that diminishes the fact that CRT's strengths often rise above it's deficiencies to produce stunning pictures. This is, after all, supposed to be a paean to CRT thread.
Hehe, all those things are either extremely minor, or are only found in cheaply produced crts (at least from my experiences). But the one thing that I love most about crts (and hopefully SED's) is that they don't have fixed resolutions, and thus, do not have to resort to pixel multiplication. I could live with all the other flaws that lcd's and plasmas have if only they didn't have fixed resolutions :( (and the inability to display interlaced video is eaqually as bad, imo) But if SED's are all they've been said to be, I'll bet even the most dedicated plasma and lcd lovers will convert :D

All posts and no replies make Geise a dull boy.
Geise is offline  
post #20 of 261 Old 10-11-2004, 12:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
specgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
geise,
I would also like to add to get all those minor benefits from the plasma you will have to pay 3 times more than you will pay for crt or rear projection crt. The only thing I'm worried about with the seds is its going to be a drastic change and usually with new products theres always the glitch's and question of reliability over time.
specgeorge is offline  
post #21 of 261 Old 10-11-2004, 01:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally posted by Geise
Hehe, all those things are either extremely minor,
Not once you've lived with a display that does deep blacks without those problems. ;)


Quote:
...or are only found in cheaply produced crts (at least from my experiences).
Those problems are endemic to one degree or another with direct view tube sets: geometry/convergence/focus, in addition color fringing etc.

The Sony XBR910 super fine pitch direct view raised the bar for consumer TVs and it's one of my all time favorite displays. However, I've seen uneven geometry, and distinctly uneven brightness (especially to the sides)
on that set more than once. (It's also been noticed by others here).

Quote:
But the one thing that I love most about crts (and hopefully SED's) is that they don't have fixed resolutions, and thus, do not have to resort to pixel multiplication.


I agree. That's a plus for CRT. (Although, a direct digital connection and pixel to pixel mapping on a digital display can reap dividends hard to find even in a CRT picture).

Quote:
I could live with all the other flaws that lcd's and plasmas have if only they didn't have fixed resolutions :( (and the inability to display interlaced video is eaqually as bad, imo)


That sounds strange to me (unless I'm not understanding you correctly).
We are in general trying to get away from the outdated interlaced system.
It's a relic of the past, devised to solve old problems in the introduction of televisions. Progressive scan - complete field information - is where it's at and plasmas are progressive scan displays. (Now we just have to get rid of the de-interlacing system at the shooting camera/transmission system level, so we don't need any of the current, fudgy de-interlacing solutions).

Quote:
But if SED's are all they've been said to be, I'll bet even the most dedicated plasma and lcd lovers will convert :D
Agreed. Should be awesome.

But I still love CRTs.
R Harkness is online now  
post #22 of 261 Old 10-11-2004, 04:28 PM
Member
 
Geise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Error
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by R Harkness
That sounds strange to me (unless I'm not understanding you correctly).
We are in general trying to get away from the outdated interlaced system.
It's a relic of the past, devised to solve old problems in the introduction of televisions. Progressive scan - complete field information - is where it's at and plasmas are progressive scan displays. (Now we just have to get rid of the de-interlacing system at the shooting camera/transmission system level, so we don't need any of the current, fudgy de-interlacing solutions).
Yeah, all "plasma people" say that :) I totally agree, progressive scan is far superior to interlacing, and I wish interlacing never existed to begin with. BUT, unless I can magically change all my interlaced DVD, VHS, and(many!) videogames into progressive scan, I will always want the best interlaced video performance from my television (and de-interlacing is total garbage, imo). People tend to forget that actual high-definition broadcasts is the least of what many people use hdtv's for :) (ironic, eh?). I'm not one to use a movie or videogame once or twice and then get rid of it. If I like something, I keep it (and use it :))

All posts and no replies make Geise a dull boy.
Geise is offline  
post #23 of 261 Old 10-11-2004, 07:18 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally posted by Geise
Yeah, all "plasma people" say that :) I totally agree, progressive scan is far superior to interlacing, and I wish interlacing never existed to begin with. BUT, unless I can magically change all my interlaced DVD, VHS, and(many!) videogames into progressive scan, I will always want the best interlaced video performance from my television (and de-interlacing is total garbage, imo).
Geise, I'm still not gettin' ya.

Motion artifacts, combing, line twitter, flicker etc. are inherent in interlaced playback. You don't escape them with "good interlaced performance." (Whatever that means).

Progressive scan is the process that "magically changes" your interlaced signals to non-interlaced (progressive, full-field display) images. It's your only hope of removing those artifacts. It's why every DVD player and practically every display now does de-interlacing, because it smooths out all those nasties we've had to deal with all these years watching interlaced signals. Why you would pooh-pooh de-interlacing is beyond me. De-interlacing isn't a perfect solution - the perfect solution is to not have an interlaced signal to begin with. But it is certainly a better solution, when done right, than displaying interlaced fields.

As far as your DVDs, all DVDs are encoded interlaced, and if you are in North America it will be an NTSC 480i (interlaced) signal. But as I outlined, there is no advantage to viewing DVDs on an interlaced display merely because all DVDs are interlaced. You'll be dealing with interlacing artifacts. Progressive scanning your signal, properly done, will provide a much smoother image.

Quote:
People tend to forget that actual high-definition broadcasts is the least of what many people use hdtv's for :) (ironic, eh?). I'm not one to use a movie or videogame once or twice and then get rid of it. If I like something, I keep it (and use it :))
Regarding Hi-Def broadcasts, it's worth noting that, of the two current standards (1080i and 720p) many people prefer 720p because 1080i being and interlaced signal still produces interlaced artifacts (especially for fast moving objects, watching sports etc).

But, again, I'm not sure why you see any advantage to watching your movies interlaced. ????

Cheers,
R Harkness is online now  
post #24 of 261 Old 10-12-2004, 09:14 AM
Member
 
Geise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Error
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by R Harkness
Geise, I'm still not gettin' ya.

Motion artifacts, combing, line twitter, flicker etc. are inherent in interlaced playback. You don't escape them with "good interlaced performance." (Whatever that means).

Progressive scan is the process that "magically changes" your interlaced signals to non-interlaced (progressive, full-field display) images. It's your only hope of removing those artifacts. It's why every DVD player and practically every display now does de-interlacing, because it smooths out all those nasties we've had to deal with all these years watching interlaced signals. Why you would pooh-pooh de-interlacing is beyond me. De-interlacing isn't a perfect solution - the perfect solution is to not have an interlaced signal to begin with. But it is certainly a better solution, when done right, than displaying interlaced fields.

As far as your DVDs, all DVDs are encoded interlaced, and if you are in North America it will be an NTSC 480i (interlaced) signal. But as I outlined, there is no advantage to viewing DVDs on an interlaced display merely because all DVDs are interlaced. You'll be dealing with interlacing artifacts. Progressive scanning your signal, properly done, will provide a much smoother image.



Regarding Hi-Def broadcasts, it's worth noting that, of the two current standards (1080i and 720p) many people prefer 720p because 1080i being and interlaced signal still produces interlaced artifacts (especially for fast moving objects, watching sports etc).

But, again, I'm not sure why you see any advantage to watching your movies interlaced. ????

Cheers,
Because I never noticed the artifacts until I saw video be de-interlaced. Infact, the artifacts I see from de-interlacing never show up at all when simply displaying an interlaced signal. I have seen a couple different ways of de-interlacing in an electronics shop, including motion adaptive, and they all produced artifacts that don't apear at all when displaying a normal 480i signal (test source was my playstation2 with an s-video cable, games and dvd's). If I need to spend hundreds of dollars to get acceptable, artifact-free de-interlacing, then I'd much rather just use 480i, which I never noticed problems to begin with (and the whole "flicker" thing with interlaced is highly dramatized imo). Anyway, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I'm just not seeing the artifacts at all with interlacing. Is there a reason for this? It can't be from tv sharpness (like my friend says) since the same crt was used for all de-interlacing demonstrations, including normal interlacing performance. Please educate me, I really like to learn about this stuff :)

All posts and no replies make Geise a dull boy.
Geise is offline  
post #25 of 261 Old 10-12-2004, 11:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
SEDs are nothing like Plasmas or LCDs....

SEDs are Field Emission Displays....basically CRTs are single electron gun emitters wheras SEDs have millions of sub-pixel electron emmiters to create video....its a large "grid" of tiny CRTs working in unison to produce a video image...

Again, SED/FEDs *ARE* CRTs technically, which is why there are discriptions of "CRT-like video images" when viewing Toshiba's SEDs....especially in the areas of blacks and shadow detail....

I'm sure SEDs 8500:1 (not a typo)contrast ratios don't hurt either :D
KLee is offline  
post #26 of 261 Old 10-12-2004, 12:11 PM
Member
 
Geise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Error
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I can imagine that they wouldn't be fixed resoluion displays either, since it's essentially just many "guns" instead of just one really fast gun as you stated, and nothing else is is significantly different. Hehe, I find myself being the only one who can't do without the accurate scaling and pixel position accuracy that only CRTs have :) (hopefully not for long :))

All posts and no replies make Geise a dull boy.
Geise is offline  
post #27 of 261 Old 10-12-2004, 04:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
specgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
klee,
You seem to have advanced knowledge about seds. could you tell us a little more on what your thoughts on seds future might be and the comparison to plasma, lcd, dlp. Thanks
specgeorge is offline  
post #28 of 261 Old 10-12-2004, 09:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Here is Canon discriptions of SEDs:

Quote:
SED consists of a glass plate mounted with electron emitters and with pixels similar in number to those of a CRT electron gun. Positioned next to it is another glass plate coated with a fluorescent substance. Between the two glass plates is a vacuum. The key here is the extremely narrow slit (several nanometers wide) made from ultrafine-particle film. Application of voltage in this narrow slit creates a tunneling effect that causes the emission of electrons. Some of these electrons are accelerated by the voltage applied between the glass plates and collide with the fluorescent-coated glass plate, causing light to be emitted. Since it is a spontaneous light display similar to a CRT, it maintains levels of brightness and color performance, as well as a wide angle of visibility, also on a par with a CRT. Larger screens can also be produced by simply increasing the number of electron emitters in accordance with the required number of pixels. Unlike CRTs, SEDs do not need electronic-beam deflection. As a result, it is now possible to create wall-mounted large-screen TV displays that are only several centimeters thick.
Remember, SEDs are basically non-carbon nanotube FEDs...here is some more info:

Quote:
FEDs incorporate a substrate coated by a thin diamond film and sealed inside an evacuated cell covered by a plate of phosphor-coated glass. When current is applied, electrons emitted from the diamond film strike the phosphor, producing light. By altering the type of phosphor, FED pixel elements can be produced in red, green and blue versions for bright, efficient, full-color displays.

Canon (Tokyo) and Toshiba (Tokyo) recently announced plans to jointly develop large-screen displays based on SED technology. An SED operates similarly to an FED, but the structure of its electron-emitting component is different. Whereas FEDs emit electrons from the entire coated surface of the glass-encased substrate, SEDs confine the electron-emitting area to a narrow, linear tunnel between two electrodes placed on the substrate's surface. It's estimated that SEDs will consume approximately half the power of CRT displays, and only one-third the power of plasma displays.

SEDs can be fabricated mostly using ordinary printing methods. Because SEDs drive electrons at about 10kV — close to that of CRTs — they can use phosphors widely used in CRTs. This makes them CRT equivalent self-emitting displays and very thin: a 40-inch sized panel can be no thicker than 10 mm, weigh less than 20kg and consume around 60W of power.
FED's produced a far brighter picture than LCD's, with a solid 160 degree viewing angle and no light-fade. FED's also produced dramatically better contrast for a crisper, more 3-dimensional picture and vivid, more saturated and more accurate color than LCD's. SED (Surface-conduction Emission Display) technology uses a great deal of FED technology with some critical changes. A thin strip of Palladium Oxide acts as an electron emitter, replacing the problematic Spindt Tips. What's more, SED displays do not require semiconductor technology, and the manufacturing of SED's does not need to be done in a vacuum or with special gases.
Best of all, the response time of SEDs are fast enough to elliminate the motion blur seen on LCDs and PDPs

Quote:
As with CRTs, electrons hit a phosphor-coated screen to emit light. But instead of being shot out of a gun, electrons are drawn out of an emitter through a slit that is only a few nanometres wide. A nanometre is one-billionth of a metre.

The result is a picture that is as bright as a CRT and does not have the slight time delay sometimes seen in pictures that have rapidly moving images, the companies said. In a demonstration of 36-inch SED, plasma and LCD TVs set side-by-side, the SED picture was noticeably brighter and crisper, and images of fast-moving objects lacked the slight blur seen on the plasma and LCD screens.
As I said before, SEDs are quoted by Toshiba to have 8500:1 contrast ratios and the first products (due in late 2005...Toshiba will be building 3000 panels a month 8/05 ramping up to around 3 mill a month by 2010) will be 50 inch 1080p products (with 40 and 60 inch SEDs to follow later) here are some pictures of prototype SED panels:

http://www.phileweb.com/news/photo/2...MIDORI_big.jpg

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/do...0914/sed01.jpg

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/do...0914/sed03.jpg

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/do...0914/sed04.jpg

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/do...0914/sed05.jpg

SED perfomance compared to CRTs, Plasmas and LCDs (note the 8500:1 contrast ratio at the bottom of the slide)
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/do...0914/sed07.jpg

Here is a picture of a 50-inch SED that was shown in japan just last weekhttp://www.weblogsinc.com/common/ima...39619221561154

This is all I know about SEDs at the present time

Samsung, Sony, Motorola, NEC, Fujitsu and others are currently developing FED products (some are Carbon Nanotube-based, others, like the Toshiba SED, are not)

Toshiba has publically stated SEDs will be priced like Plasmas......but then again Plasma TVs may feel the heat from SEDs, especially if any of the other FED products come to market in a not too distant timeframe....this, of course, would/could enduce an all-out flat panel price war, which would be good for all of us:D
KLee is offline  
post #29 of 261 Old 10-13-2004, 07:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
specgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Klee,
Many thanks for all the great info and pictures. I wasnt to clear on the target date for the 40in seds that the size i need. perhaps you could clearify the approx date. Thanks
specgeorge is offline  
post #30 of 261 Old 10-13-2004, 01:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
specgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
geise,
how did you like klees info and pictures on seds. I thought it was very informative.
specgeorge is offline  
Closed Thread 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