AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › Would you consider CRT technology superior to LCD or Plasma?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Would you consider CRT technology superior to LCD or Plasma? - Page 7

post #181 of 261
5/12/11 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chung View Post

According to info, NECXP or XM accept RGBHV, not component input!?
How to connect blueray

The Hdfury3 HDMI to RGBHV converter should do it.

Usually people are talking about YPbPr when speaking about component but RGBHV is a form of component input too.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #182 of 261
5/21/11 at 10:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentina94 View Post

I realize that even using HDMI, no widescreen CRT TV will look as sharp as a CRT monitor.

There are a few reasons for that though, that I've noticed myself. As an 24" FW900 and 34" XS955 owner I think a lot of it has to do with lower refresh rates of the TV, difficulty in correcting horizontal convergence of the TV, Image processing chip differences and the destruction of the video signal as it passes through some of these processors, and quite simply the size of the TV itself.

I can actually read my PC screen on my TV at 1080i from more than 5 feet away without squinting to hard but, I much prefer 720p if I'm using the PC on the TV. Not just because the text is larger but, it's also because I find it a bit difficult to read fine text from a few feet away with that kind of flicker that 1080i produces on a screen that large. I also have horizontal convergence issues that need fixed with some magnets, where my FW900 is pretty spot on.
Reply
Reply
post #183 of 261
5/22/11 at 7:02pm
^ You're right, newer HD CRT TV's have a LOT of loss through video signals. The video processors are just horrible. Reason for horizontal problems is mainly tube quality. Sony, Samsung and Toshiba had so much low quality tubes it made no sense. The FW900 was a high end monitor so quality was higher.

Size of tube DOES NOT MATTER. My NEC XP37 Xtra has NO geometry issues at all and it has a 36" viewable 4:3 screen. No low quality consumer TV will come close to this monitor. The 34XBR960 doesn't even come close in HD and mine does even higher than 1080p. I made my own HDMI inputs and it works easily for 720p and 1080i. In component I reach QXGA.
With my XP37 Xtra I can read at 10 feet + without squinting at all even past 1200p. At 1600x1200 I can read anything and even at QXGA (1536p (2048x1536)) I can read most icons on my desktop. The clock is so small at QXGA it's not because of precision that you can't read it.
Mitsubushi and NEC were able to make maybe the best CRT ever at sizes over 35 inch. And NO video processor means NO loss at all.
Bottom line, 1080p at 85hz or 720p at 120hz is so much fun...
And 640x480 at 120hz is so much better than a HD CRT with a downconverted signal. Any gamer can tell you that.
HD CRT Monitor > HD CRT
HD CRT = or < LCD or plasma
CRT Monitor > LCD or plasma
Reply
Reply
post #184 of 261
5/29/11 at 7:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neccrttv View Post

NEC XP37 Xtra

I had no idea something like that existed. It must look incredible and, I want one.

There is also one other thing I tend to notice about CRT's as well. They handle lower resolutions very well compared to other tech like LCD. I can put in older games from PS2 and even PS1 and they are still playable and bearable to look at. However, on an LCD I can't even understand what I'm looking at. It's like some really terrible pointillism art someone tried to do with crayons. I'm sure there are some great Plasma and LCD sets out there that can do lower resolutions just fine but, for the price and realism I get from my CRT I don't see a reason to abandon it.

And I just finished re-recalibrating my set after I found a service manual that revealed where the rest of the "Coring" settings were in the Noise Filters of my set. Then I was able to fine tune the focus a little better and now it's about as far as I can take it. Absolutely 0 use for any sharpness/noise/enhancements at any resolution. I've almost bypassed and minimized everything I can and now I can now read fine text at 1080i from half way across my room. Needless to say PS3 games like Final Fantasy 13 look astounding with no noticeable aliasing in sight.
Reply
Reply
post #185 of 261
5/29/11 at 8:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NextGen View Post

I had no idea something like that existed. It must look incredible and, I want one.

There is also one other thing I tend to notice about CRT's as well. They handle lower resolutions very well compared to other tech like LCD. I can put in older games from PS2 and even PS1 and they are still playable and bearable to look at. However, on an LCD I can't even understand what I'm looking at. =

Good luck finding one, I saw a lower model (non-1080p) XM37+ only for more than 1000$. The MSRP of these monitors was from 6000-30000USD (some sold for 20k euro).

As for gaming, that is what is the most fun about CRT. Ever used a LCD in 320x240 for a old gameboy or nes game? Even at 36", a monitor has no loss and no need for useless video settings and conversion. Even the PS2 has a component cable (same as the one for the PS3) and games look amazing. If you were lucky enough to have Gran Turismo 4, you could even play in 1080i on the PS2.
Reply
Reply
post #186 of 261
5/29/11 at 10:09am
I really loved my 34XBR960 when I had it, but at the stage of life that I'm at, I found myself moving too often to keep it, given the size and weight. That's the biggest barrier with the technology.
Reply
Reply
post #187 of 261
6/5/11 at 10:02am
i have to say plasma technology is better than crt tech. Pioneer has made prototype ZERO black level tv sets that would of came to market if they didn't get out of the tv business. SO the technology for plasma to have perfectly black blacks does exist. Plasmas have the same killer response time and perfect motion resolution.

Of course HD images look sharper on the crt. When you cram all those pixels into a tiny 34 inch screen its gonna be a sharper image. A nice 60-65 inch plasma has a ton more area to fill meaning bigger pixels meaning less sharpness. A crt would look just as soft if it was 60 inch 16x9.

Fact remains the technology is there. Pioneer was only on its 9th generation panel and they had already caught up to crt performance and crt sets have had like 100 generations. Plasma just keeps getting better and eventually even the cheapest budget sets will out perform crt.

LCD on the other hand will always lag behind in motion resolution. But when the full array local dimming sets have more dimming zones they will have perfect blacks and whites too. The LG nano local dimming tech coming out later this year may be the best lcd ever produced if it delivers on its promises.

I have both the 46 and 55 b8500 Samsungs last great tv and its rated as one of the top lcd performing tv's EVER and the whites on it are scorching bright and pure and the blacks are as deep as death itself. The picture has so much pop and 3 dimensionality to it. The colors are rich. It's an amazing LCD I love it and I would never downgrade my 55 inch b8500 for a 34 inch tube. I'd have to be crazy. Go look at a b8500 in person and tell me the blacks aren't pure black and the whites aren't pure white and the colors aren't rich and the image doesn't pop at you. if you cant give props to the kuro and some of the local dimming full array led lcd's as having equal or better pq than you are a crt fanboy.

I've owned all 3 techs and top of the line lcd's and plasmas look better than crt's. The larger sizes immerse you in the viewing experience. The overall viewing experience all factors considered the kuro plasma, b8500 samsung, sony hx929, and possibly the lg nano loc dim backlight tv's all have a much better viewing experience than a 34 inch crt i think you are crt fanboyish if you think not.

And don't get me wrong the budget lcd sets without local dimming and the budget plasmas do have crappy blacks and do have a lot of negative things about their picture and the top of the line fully matured crt's probly do handily beat those sets. But even the budget sets have that really nice large picture and having that huge screen can really immerse you in the viewing experience and make a big difference.

You cant compare top of the line crt to mid grade and budget lcd/plasma. It's only fair to compare the reference grade plasma, reference grade lcd to reference grade crt. When you do that probably 99 out of 100 people would rather have a 60 inch pioneer kuro elite monitor over the 34xbr960. that kuro has a black level of .0005 ftl which is barely perceptible to the human eye. Their fuga panels were going to have 0 black level. The pioneer elite kuros have perfect color accuracy and greyscale tracking perfect gamma almost zero line bleed. It's an amazing panel. If someone walked up to you and said you can have a 34xbr960 or a pioneer 60 inch krp-600m (9.5g kuro panel, [9g panel with some 10g tech in it]) for free but u have to use it for the rest of ur life you would have to be out your mind to take the 34 inch tv.
Reply
Reply
post #188 of 261
6/5/11 at 1:20pm
^completely agree with you. People have to understand that CRT and Plasma are almost the same thing. Additive lighting in the way of highly charged plasma particles that hits phosphors instead of a electron gun that hits phosphors. When people perfect plasma, Lcd tv's will only be chosen for small sizes or preference since, technically, the image will be equal or better all the time.

I do wish some plasmas were analog and multisync since most have so much loss through digital filters when converting. Isn't light analog in the end.....
Reply
Reply
post #189 of 261
6/6/11 at 7:17pm
problem with analog though is i dont think there are any 1080p capable analog connections. Also pretty much all 1080p video is recorded digitally so the analog conversion is gonna have to happen somewhere regardless.
Reply
Reply
post #190 of 261
6/6/11 at 7:46pm
Component video can in fact support 1080p. Also VGA is capable of 1080p and beyond. Check out a Sony GDM-FW900 CRT monitor it can do 2304x1440 resolution via VGA.
Reply
Reply
post #191 of 261
6/6/11 at 8:26pm
Yeah, ,my NEC XP37 Xtra supports 1080p over component and QXGA over VGA. PS3, XBOX360 and most blu-rays can output 1080p in analog over component, and sometimes, quality is better than HDMI on some TV's. That was the case on one of my 42" LG / Insignia TV's. It couldn't even display 1080p in HDMI while having a 1080p panel but it could in component. This could apply to a lot of early LCD's that had 1080p panels but no support.
Too bad the HDMI/DVI to component converter in the Sony DA4 chassis (XBR960, HS510, etc.) only supported max 1080i. Maybe once I'll try feedind direct 1080p component to the TV to see what it does (not passing by the UD board).
Reply
Reply
post #192 of 261
6/8/11 at 8:17am
still there are no analog 1080p sources. all video is digital. I was just saying that cause he said he wanted an analog plasma television but the video sources are digital so wheteher the tv converts it to analog or the players converts it to analog there is always gonna be a conversion
Reply
Reply
post #193 of 261
6/8/11 at 2:25pm
The problem is not about the recorded digital signal. It's made to have no loss.
What I'd prefer is a new flat technology that has no fixed pixels like aperture grille CRT monitors and can profit from multisync because of that since there would be no need to use a scalar video IC, where all HDCRT'S, lcds and plasmas lose against CRT monitors, and could sync to VGA.

Plasmas and LCD are digital in the way that, even though they can use analog signals like VGA and component, the image has to go through the internal video processor and scalars to display a picture. (fixed pixels too)
Compare any CRT that has no scalar to a HDTV CRT with one. A non-HD CRT that was analog has more than often a better quality than the more recent HDCRT. Look at Panasonic Tau's. The 2001 non-HD model was so much better than the HD model. Even when it was in HD since the HD model had so much jitter and loss through it's digital IC'S and scalars for 1080i that the SD model in S-Video had a better quality, while not being in 1080i. In SD, the HD Tau looked so bad that it hurt the eyes to look at.
Of course, some video scaling processors are better than others, but the loss is there.
CRT multysync monitors are on a class of there own.


ALL HD CRT TV's recent (even the XBR960) have poor quality compared to most normal CRT monitors. Anyone can see that there Trinitron tube based HP P930 can achieve prefect precision and color at all resolutions, even 320x240 and even at resolutions higher than 1080p.
Most monitors even have perfect geometry right from the box.
Any gamer will tell you that HDCRT'S, LCd and plasma are not to be comapred to even low class monitors.
Compare a FW900 or a mitsubishi megaview to any HD CRT and you will know what I'm talking about.
Reply
Reply
post #194 of 261
6/9/11 at 12:23pm
Very true-CRT monitors really are the best of all worlds. Except size. :-(

720p on my old gdm-w900 was absolutely perfect, but in the end it was just too small for any sort of immersive experience.

My xs955 is nowhere near the crispness or clarity of a progressive image from my monitor, but is still very nice. Even then 34" seems a bit smallish(especially as my eyes get older).
Reply
Reply
post #195 of 261
6/9/11 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by salty View Post

Very true-CRT monitors really are the best of all worlds. Except size. :-(

It really is a shame how few CRT monitors bigger than 22" were made. The world doesn't have enough FW900s and Megaview Pros. Had Sony produced a 27" (or larger) Super Fine Pitch Hi-Scan FD Trinitron multisync tube, then threw on a tuner and a RGBHV input and bypassed all the digital video processing circuitry, I bet the Trinitron would still be in production today. Maybe it would just be a niche market thing since the typical consumer would be too underinformed to appreciate it, but still. Heck, imagine if the KV-40XBR800 had eliminated all that digital stuff and could multisync! Even if it could only scan to 50 KHz, I'd be all over such a thing, and I'd imagine I wouldn't be the only one.

A man can dream, can't he?
Reply
Reply
post #196 of 261
6/9/11 at 7:49pm
A little follow up:

I tweaked the settings on the BD player as best I could, as well as my HD cable box, and set the TV the way I like to watch it (though I should get one of those calibration discs everyone keeps mentioning).

I tried my 2 BD's a second time, and here's what happened. My wife said that Hugh Jackman's face looked grainy in Wolverine, and that things looked really gritty in Expendables. Hmmm, I thought...she's already disillusioned with the BD player I talked up so much before getting one. Then I realized something...what we were seeing wasn't artifacts or graininess in the display...at only 720p the 30W585 is so acurate, that it was showing the beard stubble, pores, sweat and other things on the actors faces...it was also showing the imperfections in the material itself! WOW!

I decided to try some DVD's, and see how the BDT350 did with upconverting those, and again, the JVC was amazing. I,Robot looks almost as good as a BD, with very little wrong noticable. Same result with the Matrix and I Am Legend. In fact, trying playback on both movies with Will Smith I realized that the TV's and stereo's he had in his house were all JVC's! Kinda funny watching a movie featuring JVC tv's in them, on one (mind you I think one was an HD-ILA projection CRT, the other an LCD).

This TV never ceases to impress, and everytime I watch something in NG HD or Discovery HD, it blows both me, and anyone else in the room watching, away.

I am pretty sure that the AV-30W585 is likely the best CRT JVC ever made. I think it's actually one of few that got the label "I'Art PRO". I even found another one this week on Kijiji for $75.00, and I'm likely going to buy it just to give to either my mother-in law (yes, I actually like mine, and she's only got a 20 or 26" Sylvania CRT in her basement), or to my sister and my brother-in law (also own a 27" Sanyo that's dying slowly) as a present.

I think my only option in the future for a larger display with CRT-like qualities, is either finding a cheap HD-ILA projection CRT, or a Plasma.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot...I sit less then 12 feet away from the TV, so the only 30" 16:9 display looks more like a 37" or larger from that distance, and the right viewing height. I also love that the picture looks awesome from wide angles too.

Cheers!
Reply
Reply
post #197 of 261
6/9/11 at 7:55pm
^that is why I keep my true HD 36" monitor and will never be changing for LCD and Plasma.
Also, having a vertical and horizontal size adjust on remote is so fun since even when I'm displaying 720p, 1080p or any 16:9 signal I can adjust vertical size to fit the whole screen. I haven't seen that yet on LCD's hehe. Even pin cushion and overscan/underscan button.
Reply
Reply
post #198 of 261
6/10/11 at 4:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davis137 View Post

Oh yeah, I almost forgot...I sit less then 12 feet away from the TV, so the only 30" 16:9 display looks more like a 37" or larger from that distance, and the right viewing height.Cheers!

Someone may correct me but the viewing distance for a 30" TV should be 4-5ft to take advantage of HD.
Reply
Reply
post #199 of 261
6/11/11 at 1:45am
Correct 4-5 feet for a 30" screen. I keep within that distance when watching my 30" HD CRT it's much more immersive at that distance as the screen appears much larger that way. Size being relative to distance and all.
Reply
Reply
post #200 of 261
6/11/11 at 11:29am
So 4 feet from my 36" HDTV is okay? Haha that's larger than 42" wide.
Reply
Reply
post #201 of 261
6/18/11 at 5:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by laststop311 View Post

i have to say plasma technology is better than crt tech. Pioneer has made prototype ZERO black level tv sets that would of came to market if they didn't get out of the tv business. SO the technology for plasma to have perfectly black blacks does exist. Plasmas have the same killer response time and perfect motion resolution.

Of course HD images look sharper on the crt. When you cram all those pixels into a tiny 34 inch screen its gonna be a sharper image. A nice 60-65 inch plasma has a ton more area to fill meaning bigger pixels meaning less sharpness. A crt would look just as soft if it was 60 inch 16x9.

Fact remains the technology is there. Pioneer was only on its 9th generation panel and they had already caught up to crt performance and crt sets have had like 100 generations. Plasma just keeps getting better and eventually even the cheapest budget sets will out perform crt.

LCD on the other hand will always lag behind in motion resolution. But when the full array local dimming sets have more dimming zones they will have perfect blacks and whites too. The LG nano local dimming tech coming out later this year may be the best lcd ever produced if it delivers on its promises.

I have both the 46 and 55 b8500 Samsungs last great tv and its rated as one of the top lcd performing tv's EVER and the whites on it are scorching bright and pure and the blacks are as deep as death itself. The picture has so much pop and 3 dimensionality to it. The colors are rich. It's an amazing LCD I love it and I would never downgrade my 55 inch b8500 for a 34 inch tube. I'd have to be crazy. Go look at a b8500 in person and tell me the blacks aren't pure black and the whites aren't pure white and the colors aren't rich and the image doesn't pop at you. if you cant give props to the kuro and some of the local dimming full array led lcd's as having equal or better pq than you are a crt fanboy.

I've owned all 3 techs and top of the line lcd's and plasmas look better than crt's. The larger sizes immerse you in the viewing experience. The overall viewing experience all factors considered the kuro plasma, b8500 samsung, sony hx929, and possibly the lg nano loc dim backlight tv's all have a much better viewing experience than a 34 inch crt i think you are crt fanboyish if you think not.

And don't get me wrong the budget lcd sets without local dimming and the budget plasmas do have crappy blacks and do have a lot of negative things about their picture and the top of the line fully matured crt's probly do handily beat those sets. But even the budget sets have that really nice large picture and having that huge screen can really immerse you in the viewing experience and make a big difference.

You cant compare top of the line crt to mid grade and budget lcd/plasma. It's only fair to compare the reference grade plasma, reference grade lcd to reference grade crt. When you do that probably 99 out of 100 people would rather have a 60 inch pioneer kuro elite monitor over the 34xbr960. that kuro has a black level of .0005 ftl which is barely perceptible to the human eye. Their fuga panels were going to have 0 black level. The pioneer elite kuros have perfect color accuracy and greyscale tracking perfect gamma almost zero line bleed. It's an amazing panel. If someone walked up to you and said you can have a 34xbr960 or a pioneer 60 inch krp-600m (9.5g kuro panel, [9g panel with some 10g tech in it]) for free but u have to use it for the rest of ur life you would have to be out your mind to take the 34 inch tv.

You really can't judge a prototype to see how it plays out in real world conditions.. Digital displays still come with baggage.. Digital haze in movies & gaming. With CRT it's totally different. You get analog without the digital BS. The Kuro's are great.. But the best HD CRT rear projection set fully calibrated with probably better them. CRT is film like in there presentation, that's why videophiles drool over them. & if companies didn't give up on CRT technology, you would see even better CRT HD's on the market.

I don't think any TV has perfect color accuracy.. If so, it would be a 15,000-30,000 CRT monitor used for filming & broadcasting, which leads me to another point.. Major studios still use CRT almost exclusively I believe, along with the majority of news networks, etc.. So the CRT is still the standard, & will be for a long time.

Would I rather have a 60inch Kuro or 34inch 960.. If the 960 is 100% calibrated with very minor geometry problems, I'd probably get the 960.. Not to sound like a total CRT fan boy, I did see a 46inch, 8,000 LED that bettered the 960 in general, minus the dark scenes..
Reply
Reply
post #202 of 261
7/14/11 at 2:22pm
Not really sayin it can't look better on other techs, but watching Alien (Director's Cut) on a well-adjusted CRT with nice inky blacks is almost like a religious experience.
Reply
Reply
post #203 of 261
7/15/11 at 9:20am
^ Even though I repair and see so many different technologies and different brands, I can sometimes watch a movie and just be awed at how much detail is freaking being put out by my CRT monitor (36") while it looks like hell on a LCD or plasma. SO much difference in color and definition that you'd have to be stupid to believe LCD is a better technology. That's without talking about response time and all other tech related problems.
Reply
Reply
post #204 of 261
7/19/11 at 10:39pm
I love CRTs over LCDs, Plasmas and LEDs. So much its my login.

I wrote an extensive article here, may be of interest:
CRT vs LCD, Video Inputs, Lightguns on HD and More Guides
Reply
Reply
post #205 of 261
7/19/11 at 11:07pm
Watch 18:27 to 19:00 of this video. CRT is still the best.
Reply
Reply
post #206 of 261
7/20/11 at 6:27am
Yep, a HP CRT monitor! What I'm looking at to type this right now! And I probably have the same quality she does!
Reply
Reply
post #207 of 261
7/20/11 at 8:25am
The HD and LCDs killed the Lightgun. Anyone who has a Dreamcast can enjoy House of the Dead with a Lightgun again with a VGA CRT monitor.

Reply
Reply
post #208 of 261
7/20/11 at 10:32am
Yeah same thing for the NES gun. But was really the progressive scanning tech that killed that, not the HD part. Too bad though. Does the dreamcast gun work with progressive?
Reply
Reply
post #209 of 261
7/22/11 at 11:34am
SED is where CRT tech evolved to and it looked like it would be simply amazing

its a shame we will most likely never see it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...mitter_display
Reply
Reply
post #210 of 261
7/22/11 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neccrttv View Post

Yeah same thing for the NES gun. But was really the progressive scanning tech that killed that, not the HD part. Too bad though. Does the dreamcast gun work with progressive?

I don't think the light guns would work since the screen draw is done differently. Just to give an idea, on my HD CRT I can control the gunsight vertical location but horizontal jumps around. The PS2 lightgun does offer a 480p mode so it might work on progressive scan EDTVs but not on a HD CRT. The Dreamcast Lightgun does work on a VGA CRT at 640x480 mode.

See my earlier Reply link, I wrote an extensive article there.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › Would you consider CRT technology superior to LCD or Plasma?