or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › What flat panel looks closest to a CRT?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What flat panel looks closest to a CRT? - Page 2

post #31 of 80
Quote:
If it isn't black—i.e. you can see the panel glowing in a dark room—it's "grey". With the Kuros, it's actually a reddish-purple glow. Even the KRPs had an obvious glow compared to my CRTs when watching it at night.

But it's not grey enough to be distracted from. Like i said, it glows, but the light emitted is so low that it looks light black. The darkest scenes from the last harry potter plays easily on my 151. The darker the scene you can tell theres an glow, but it's very low and doesn't look grey at all.

Not everyone has that purple glow. And those that do, it can only be seen on a full black screen. Not with dynamic content which is how we watch movies. I had that purple glow (or maybe i thought i did) but for some reason it's gone. Now on a full black screen it's very very dim and uniform.
post #32 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

But it's not grey enough to be distracted from. Like i said, it glows, but the light emitted is so low that it looks light black. The darkest scenes from the last harry potter plays easily on my 151. The darker the scene you can tell theres an glow, but it's very low and doesn't look grey at all.
Perhaps it's good enough for you, I found it to be distracting, especially on the non-KRP sets. And there's no such thing as "light black". "Light black" is grey.

If someone is truly happy with the black levels on their Kuros, they have been away from a good CRT long enough that they don't know what they're missing out on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Not everyone has that purple glow. And those that do, it can only be seen on a full black screen.
They all do, whether people notice it is another matter. The front filter that Pioneer used on the displays was actually tinted red to "enhance red reproduction".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

I can't imagine that the best of the best kuro's appear gray, but i'd still take a Kuro over a crt and it's great that you don't have to break the bank these days to get a comparable plasma.
An argument could definetly be made that static contrast is only good up to a certian point but in my experience direct view crt's and especially rear pros are below that point.
Motion handling and flicker was much worse than the CRTs I compared mine with, and black levels weren't good enough in a dark room. The significant dithering and posterization (with 24p) was very distracting compared to a noise-free CRT with perfectly smooth gradation.

The only advantage the Kuros had was size in my opinion. (which is very important to some people)
post #33 of 80
"Plasmas cannot match a CRT when it comes to black level. Local-dimming LED-backlit LCDs can"

lol. plasmas for the most part have eclipsed or even surpassed crt. led's come close to plasmas, the lower end plasmas, but are a stretch away from crt blacks. I havent been here in awhile, and im appalled by all the uninformed posts around here. where did all the people who know what they are talking about an can back it up go?
post #34 of 80
post #35 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

The significant dithering and posterization (with 24p) was very distracting compared to a noise-free CRT with perfectly smooth gradation.
The only advantage the Kuros had was size in my opinion. (which is very important to some people)
And you're again in the minority when it comes to those who find the dithering distracting on the Kuro. The only advantage was the size? Thanks for the laugh.
post #36 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

And you're again in the minority when it comes to those who find the dithering distracting on the Kuro.
The question was which flat panel looks closest to a CRT. There are far too many artefacts with a Kuro. It does not look "CRT-like" at all.

One of the main things that defines a CRT image is how smooth and free of artefacts it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

The only advantage was the size? Thanks for the laugh.
Come back when you've actually done a comparison with a properly set up, high-end CRT such as the Sony FW900.

The only real advantage the Kuro has is its size, and I'll give it simultaneous contrast as well. (which is considerably less important than people on here would have you believe) Dynamic range (i.e. being able to actually fade to black) is far more important than simultaneous contrast.

I'd be interested in hearing what other areas you believe Kuros are superior to CRTs though.
post #37 of 80
Size
Weight
Radiation (not sure about this one)
Not having to worry about shards of glass flying through your eyeballs if you drop or break the screen.
Plasma is about as crt like as it gets, most people would agree that a plasma is more crt like than an lcd.
The Sharp Elite isn't very crt like either probably less so than a good plasma.
post #38 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

]Come back when you've actually done a comparison with a properly set up, high-end CRT such as the Sony FW900.

.

I looked up a Sony FW900...a 24" 16:10 flat CRT....is that the only CRT that lives up to your standards? Do they come in a reasonable viewing size other than for your desk?
post #39 of 80
They don't make ones like that with a ridiculously high resolution any bigger but sony does have some nice direct view sets at 40" (I wouldn't want to be in the room if one of those suckers imploded eek.giftongue.gif. Convergence added to the list of things plasma owners don't have to worry about, plasmas also provide a higher resolution picture. Sure the list of things that a plasma does better than a crt isn't as long as the list of things a crt does better than an lcd and there are things a crt still does better than plasmas but plasma is the most crt like for now (if that's what your going for).
post #40 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Perhaps it's good enough for you, I found it to be distracting, especially on the non-KRP sets. And there's no such thing as "light black". "Light black" is grey.
If someone is truly happy with the black levels on their Kuros, they have been away from a good CRT long enough that they don't know what they're missing out on.
If you found the black levels distracting then your kuro was setup wrong.

Sorry, im not distracted by any grey. I guess i have a special 151.
Quote:
They all do, whether people notice it is another matter. The front filter that Pioneer used on the displays was actually tinted red to "enhance red reproduction".

Sorry, you're wrong. Im sitting here right now in front of my kuro in a pitch black room. No purple glow.
Quote:
It does not look "CRT-like" at all.

What? define CRT like.

The kuro has the most analog looking picture i've ever seen. To me it looks better than a CRT.
post #41 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

The question was which flat panel looks closest to a CRT. There are far too many artefacts with a Kuro. It does not look "CRT-like" at all.
One of the main things that defines a CRT image is how smooth and free of artefacts it is.
Come back when you've actually done a comparison with a properly set up, high-end CRT such as the Sony FW900.
The only real advantage the Kuro has is its size, and I'll give it simultaneous contrast as well. (which is considerably less important than people on here would have you believe) Dynamic range (i.e. being able to actually fade to black) is far more important than simultaneous contrast.
I'd be interested in hearing what other areas you believe Kuros are superior to CRTs though.
You're correct in that I haven't done any direct CRT comparisons and also haven't owned any high quality CRT sets (i.e. the Sony of which you speak). I am still somewhat surprised by your assessment of the Kuro in comparison to that CRT, but I can't dispute your own findings in that context.
post #42 of 80
Without a doubt PLASMA is the closest thing you'll ever get to a CRT.

I've also got the Panasonic 2012 X5 plasma from this year and it's 'far' from an Average set. The color gamut is flat out amazing on this
set, the blacks while good of course aren't perfect, don't expect CRT 'blend into the bezel blacks' although they almost look that way
in a dim room. In the pitch dark however that's not the case. Still they're pretty solid. Brightness is also pretty amazing(for a plasma)
in 'game mode' for gaming.


The motion handeling of a good plasma(Lets say a modern LG 600hz set which beats out the 600hz panny's in this department) completely rape LCD and LED.
it's a flat out night and day comparison. Personally i can't stand watching film on LCD/LED because of this motion smearing issue alone.

Nobody has mentioned the natural beautiful glow that a plasma also produces(especially when Blue hits the screen), LCD and LEDs emit this
nasty dismal pissy & ugly glow if that even matters to you. XP For movies, PLasma is the way to go and that's that. They are the closes thing to CRT bare none. CRT still reigns supreme. Perfect motion
handeling on the direct tube TV's, amazing contrast/black levels and no motion artifcats OR auto dimming which all plasma's have....

For gaming, it's a toss up. LCD's produce a cleaner image, A brighter image with pure whites that will insantly make you say "wow"
But that bloody motion blur is just uneccaptable....I can tolerate it for certain genere's(3D Platformers and 'slow' side scrollers)
but for the most part it's just extremely annoying...

But at least LCD's aren't plagued with auto dimming, which is a complete deal breaker for me when it comes to gaming, but i could
say the same thing about an LCD's motion handeling. Where's super OLED when we need it. When affordable smaller sized sets become
available i will never waste a dime on either Plasma,LCD or LEd again!
post #43 of 80
There have been too many updates since I last posted to respond individually.
  1. Just because Plasmas "use phosphors" and CRTs "used phosphors" does not make the image from them similar. At all. Anyone saying this doesn't know what they're talking about. LCDs also "use phosphors" with their backlights.
  2. The main defining characteristics of a "CRT-like image" for me are:
    • Lack of digital artefacts—no dithering noise, posterization/banding, scaling artefacts, interpolation errors, obvious pixel structure etc.
    • Sharp motion and almost no motion artefacts—no color breakup, flashing, overdrive errors, interpolation artefacts etc.
    • A sharp image regardless of the source resolution, flat panels are only sharp at native resolution.
    • Extremely high dynamic range (on-off contrast) and limited simultaneous contrast (ANSI) capabilities.
    • Generally a very "smooth" image. Fine pixel-pitch (display dependent) and smooth edges due to the gaussian beam of the CRT.
    • Phosphor glow. This is something that I don't think Plasmas replicate, at least not in the same fashion as CRTs. There's something about them that is oddly appealing and I can't explain it, perhaps it's nostalgia.

    Plasmas add a lot of noise to the image, introduce posterization/banding (the Kuros were very bad at 72–100Hz) are generally poor at gradation, suffer from motion artefacts such as color breakup due to mismatched phosphor response, have poor black levels (all Plasmas glow in a dark room) have a comparatively poor pixel pitch and so have an obvious pixel structure. The image is anything but CRT-like, it's very digital looking.

    Compare that with a full array local-dimming LED backlit LCD such as Sony's HX900:
    • Good gradation capabilities (not as good as CRT but better than Plasma and what I have seen from OLED)
    • Displays an image true to the source, no added digital artefacts such as dithering.
    • Extremely high dynamic range (exceeds CRT capabilities) and somewhat reduced ANSI contrast (though vastly exceeding CRT)
    • Good motion handling capabilities due to backlight scanning. Maintains high motion resolution without obvious artefacts in most cases. (definitely not as good as CRT though)
    • Optically bonded glass panel on the front of the display makes the panel look very "CRT-like" compared to the coatings on most other LCD/Plasma displays.
    • No ABL. (well actually, you have the option if you want that) Plasmas can dim the image by 50% or more depending on the brightness of the scene, whereas a good CRT was 10% or less.
    • Comparatively fine pixel-pitch compared to PDP, smoother image that is truer to the source. Comparison between low resolution and high resolution LCDs to show what I mean by this. Same source, but higher pixel density shows a much smoother image. 4K LCD is already on the market, 4K Plasma is a long way off.

    The viewing angle on any LCD is the biggest difference though, viewing angle on all LCD sucks. This is not a concern for me, but I can see why it might be an issue.
  3. Geometry and convergence was not really an issue on higher-end CRTs. The FW900 I mentioned has 135 point control for example. I used that as an example because it's probably the best CRT that was made available to consumers. I'm fairly sure that Sony had a 32" monitor, and I think also a 40" monitor available for professional use.


I am going to respond to this directly though:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaveBoy View Post

The motion handeling of a good plasma(Lets say a modern LG 600hz set which beats out the 600hz panny's in this department) completely rape LCD and LED.
I think this kind of talk is absolutely disgusting, and has no place here. Is this an "Americanism" I am not aware of? I have noticed the casual use of "rape" more and more frequently here.
post #44 of 80
The VT50 series got the flat panel shootout with the Elite getting a close 2nd so Panasonic and Plasma's must be doing something right.
post #45 of 80
That's all well and good, Chrono (as usual, I think you're overestimating some deficiencies of the finest plasmas, but that's neither here nor there), but you conveniently ignored the phenomenon of blooming (which is an artifact of sorts when it comes to reproducing the image and the only reason why the HX900 doesn't glow like the dreaded plasma; and is not a gimmick I find acceptable when it comes to camouflaging the shortcomings of lacking LCD screen uniformity) and minimized poor wider angle viewing when addressing the beloved Sony, which are 2 significant areas where both plasma and CRT have the HX900 beat. The last motion rez shootout I have seen conducted was from way back in 2008, and Kuro did the best in retaining its resolution during motion. I am sure LCD has made significant inroads since that time, though. Finally, just as the wider angle viewing is not a concern for yourself, dithering is largely not a factor for those who sit the recommended distance for the given size of their panel. I've seen evidence of color gradation (rarely ever distracting) on my Kuro and would love to see how the HX900 (or like) compares. I have to question how much of it is due to the lower color bit depth of the source (and the transmission medium) versus the panel itself.

I haven't noticed the recent abuse/crass use of the "rape" term here, but it was most certainly used by a Canadian on this most recent occasion, so we should try to keep xenophobia out of the discussion. That said, I agree it was in poor taste.
Edited by vinnie97 - 7/23/12 at 11:54pm
post #46 of 80
The question is, what FP tech looks most like a CRT? Historically PDP has always been mentioned as the closest for obvious reasons.

1 - Both PDP and CRT generate light using millions of individual phosphor pixels or dots near the surface of the screen.

2 - Both PDP and CRT have similar contrast stability with viewing angle.

3 - Both PDP and CRT have relatively consistent luminance uniformity across the screen.

4 - Both PDP and CRT reflect light from inter and intra pixel surfaces creating a similar characteristic look to the screen in ambient light.

5 – Both PDP and CRT are power on demand devices that maximize peak white at low APL.

6 - Both PDP and CRT use impulse like generation of light creating a characteristic flicker and improved motion resolution.


LCD is dramatically and characteristically different in all regards above. LCDs transmission of light, polarizer, color filter, mura, viewing angle vs contrast, blue MLL, all produce a characteristic look that is absolutely unique and just not comparable to any other tech.

Regarding PDP dither: IMO the presence of dither in PDP only strengthens it CRT look by softening the picture. If viewed from a proper distance the picture looks smoother and more natural. Up close the dither is obviously characteristic to PDP though.
post #47 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

1 - Both PDP and CRT generate light using millions of individual phosphor pixels or dots near the surface of the screen.
That’s true, but due to the encased cell structure and different phosphors used, PDP lacks the characteristic “phosphor glow” of a CRT in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

2 - Both PDP and CRT have similar contrast stability with viewing angle.
You won’t hear any arguments against that from me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

3 - Both PDP and CRT have relatively consistent luminance uniformity across the screen.
As do full-array locally dimmed LED backlit LCDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

4 - Both PDP and CRT reflect light from inter and intra pixel surfaces creating a similar characteristic look to the screen in ambient light.
In my experience, PDPs have typically been much worse than CRTs in this regard, but I’m sure that size plays a big role. Put a Kuro in a bright room and the whole panel turns grey, but put a CRT in a bright room and the main impact on the image is dimming of the image and “black crush” with some lightening of the image being a secondary impact on the image rather than a primary one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

5 – Both PDP and CRT are power on demand devices that maximize peak white at low APL.
That’s true, but the ABL in a PDP is significantly more aggressive than any CRT I have ever owned or measured, and more “digital” in nature. With CRT it seemed like it was actually related to power consumption, whereas with PDP it is the same regardless of how bright you set the panel. Some LCDs (such as Sony’s LCDs) have the option to enable an ABL if this is something you prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

6 - Both PDP and CRT use impulse like generation of light creating a characteristic flicker and improved motion resolution.
And here I would argue that the scanning backlight implemented on modern LCDs is actually closer to a CRT than PDP is, where the backlight is actually scanned similar to how a CRT drew the image in scanlines . (And the panel itself is updated in a scanned fashion) These displays are comparable to high refresh CRTs with minimal visible flicker, but the advantage of short image persistence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Regarding PDP dither: IMO the presence of dither in PDP only strengthens it CRT look by softening the picture. If viewed from a proper distance the picture looks smoother and more natural. Up close the dither is obviously characteristic to PDP though.
Dither on the Kuros in particular was obvious to me sitting 12+ ft away from a 50″ panel. (2–3× my preferred viewing distance) It may help hide scaling artefacts (I would argue using better scaling is preferable) but I don’t think it makes the image CRT-like in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

you conveniently ignored the phenomenon of blooming (which is an artifact of sorts when it comes to reproducing the image and the only reason why the HX900 doesn't glow like the dreaded plasma; and is not a gimmick I find acceptable when it comes to camouflaging the shortcomings of lacking LCD screen uniformity)
I would argue that this makes the image considerably more CRT-like, as CRTs exhibited this behaviour as well. (Though blooming has less impact on the image with LCDs than CRTs)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

The last motion rez shootout I have seen conducted was from way back in 2008, and Kuro did the best in retaining its resolution during motion. I am sure LCD has made significant inroads since that time, though.
The Kuros could not reach the highest score available in motion tests at the time, and the tests performed nowadays are stricter. You should note that Panasonic claims “1080 lines” of motion resolution each year, but drops the rating of previous panels as the tests get stricter. LCDs with scanning backlights significantly improve motion resolution and they score top marks in many of the tests performed today.

PDP is without a doubt, still sharper with fast motion, but also suffers from worse motion artefacts in my opinion, that did not exist on CRT. (Colour break-up/flashing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

I've seen evidence of color gradation (rarely ever distracting) on my Kuro and would love to see how the HX900 (or like) compares. I have to question how much of it is due to the lower color bit depth of the source (and the transmission medium) versus the panel itself.
I found that images tended to look quite “ruddy” on the Kuros at higher refresh rates due to posterization in shadows, for lack of a better description. It was definitely the panel and not the source. I have seen similar artefacts on LCDs when you try to do too much correction near black with external video processors/LUTs for example. (And the lower the bit-depth of the LUT/processing, the more obvious it is)
post #48 of 80
Chronoptimist
Why do you spend so much time defending a dead tech like CRT?
It's only a 34" wide screen at the most sans the 300 pound 40" 4:3 Sony XBR800.
A 34" wide screen is just big enough for a small bed room.
For a living room from 10 ft away it's a joke.
With CRT the elephant in the room IS the small screen.
post #49 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

That’s true, but due to the encased cell structure and different phosphors used, PDP lacks the characteristic “phosphor glow” of a CRT in my opinion.
Not sure what this phosphor glow is? Do you mean phosphorescence? If so, both CRT and PDP exhibit phosphorescence while LCD does not. Even so, the primary similarity made here is the emmissive architecture of PDP and CRT and the characteristics that it produces. This fundamental difference is really all you need to completely exclude LCD from this comparison. Most of your arguments comparing LD-LCD to a CRT are reaching at best. The only one of merit to me is the cross-talk (blooming + dynamic MLL). Both are fundamental to the device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

In my experience, PDPs have typically been much worse than CRTs in this regard, but I’m sure that size plays a big role. Put a Kuro in a bright room and the whole panel turns grey, but put a CRT in a bright room and the main impact on the image is dimming of the image and “black crush” with some lightening of the image being a secondary impact on the image rather than a primary one.
Stick to the OP question. With regards the OP question CRT and PDP are very much comparable with regards to reflection from internal surfaces. LCD with color filters and a polarizer is absolutely not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

And here I would argue that the scanning backlight implemented on modern LCDs is actually closer to a CRT than PDP is, where the backlight is actually scanned similar to how a CRT drew the image in scanlines . (And the panel itself is updated in a scanned fashion) These displays are comparable to high refresh CRTs with minimal visible flicker, but the advantage of short image persistence.
PDP weighted subfields produce a 60Hz duty cycle flicker that is nearly identical to CRT in presentation.
post #50 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Perhaps it's good enough for you, I found it to be distracting, especially on the non-KRP sets. And there's no such thing as "light black". "Light black" is grey.
If someone is truly happy with the black levels on their Kuros, they have been away from a good CRT long enough that they don't know what they're missing out on.
They all do, whether people notice it is another matter. The front filter that Pioneer used on the displays was actually tinted red to "enhance red reproduction".
Motion handling and flicker was much worse than the CRTs I compared mine with, and black levels weren't good enough in a dark room. The significant dithering and posterization (with 24p) was very distracting compared to a noise-free CRT with perfectly smooth gradation.
The only advantage the Kuros had was size in my opinion. (which is very important to some people)

Again are you saying the MLL on some/all CRT are lower than My Pioneer 101 @ .0005 MLL ,MLL that low provides very satisfing BLACKS , BTW the 101 uses a filter that shows NO RED TINT ,your link is for europeon products and is out of date , can you provide a measured MLL and which CRT you tested? Maybe your Pioneer was a dud . D Nice can tweak the MLL of most all Kuros to very low level ,so there is some panel to panel difference from the factory setup .

Please provide # 's for the MLL , and if it is on a total black screen or checkerboard pattern .
Edited by qwknuf6 - 7/24/12 at 1:57pm
post #51 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwknuf6 View Post

Again are you saying the MLL on some/all CRT are lower than My Pioneer 101
Absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwknuf6 View Post

BTW the 101 uses a filter that shows NO RED TINT ,your link is for europeon products and is out of date
The KRPs used the Direct Color Filter 3+ which was the best filter Pioneer offered. The filter itself is tinted to enhance red reproduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwknuf6 View Post

can you provide a measured MLL and which CRT you tested?
I do not have instrumentation that can measure that low accurately, there are many sources which show CRTs capable of better dynamic range than the Kuros. (And it's easy to see in a direct comparison)
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwknuf6 View Post

Maybe your Pioneer was a dud.
I had basically one of each generation 50" Kuro Pioneer made (720p, 1080p gen 1, 1080p and KRP gen 2 iirc) I guess they must all have been "duds"...
post #52 of 80
Quote:
No ABL. (well actually, you have the option if you want that) Plasmas can dim the image by 50% or more depending on the brightness of the scene, whereas a good CRT was 10% or less.

Anyone know which if any plasmas allow you to shut this auto dimming feature off completely, or at least turn it down so it's similar to crt levels?


Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

The question is, what FP tech looks most like a CRT? Historically PDP has always been mentioned as the closest for obvious reasons.
1 - Both PDP and CRT generate light using millions of individual phosphor pixels or dots near the surface of the screen.
2 - Both PDP and CRT have similar contrast stability with viewing angle.
3 - Both PDP and CRT have relatively consistent luminance uniformity across the screen.
4 - Both PDP and CRT reflect light from inter and intra pixel surfaces creating a similar characteristic look to the screen in ambient light.
5 – Both PDP and CRT are power on demand devices that maximize peak white at low APL.
6 - Both PDP and CRT use impulse like generation of light creating a characteristic flicker and improved motion resolution.
LCD is dramatically and characteristically different in all regards above. LCDs transmission of light, polarizer, color filter, mura, viewing angle vs contrast, blue MLL, all produce a characteristic look that is absolutely unique and just not comparable to any other tech.
Regarding PDP dither: IMO the presence of dither in PDP only strengthens it CRT look by softening the picture. If viewed from a proper distance the picture looks smoother and more natural. Up close the dither is obviously characteristic to PDP though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Not sure what this phosphor glow is? Do you mean phosphorescence? If so, both CRT and PDP exhibit phosphorescence while LCD does not. Even so, the primary similarity made here is the emmissive architecture of PDP and CRT and the characteristics that it produces. This fundamental difference is really all you need to completely exclude LCD from this comparison. Most of your arguments comparing LD-LCD to a CRT are reaching at best. The only one of merit to me is the cross-talk (blooming + dynamic MLL). Both are fundamental to the device.
Stick to the OP question. With regards the OP question CRT and PDP are very much comparable with regards to reflection from internal surfaces. LCD with color filters and a polarizer is absolutely not.
PDP weighted subfields produce a 60Hz duty cycle flicker that is nearly identical to CRT in presentation.

Hey, these two posts forced chronoptimist into having relations against his will!
post #53 of 80
Stop using the words better dynamic range please biggrin.gif Plasmas are brighter and therefore could be every bit the equal for dynamic range.
Black level is the term that applies here.
post #54 of 80
Sorry, I somehow skipped over your post. I'll blame it on posting from my iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Not sure what this phosphor glow is? Do you mean phosphorescence? If so, both CRT and PDP exhibit phosphorescence while LCD does not.
Unfortunately, this is a terrible answer, but it's difficult to describe, and I know it when I see it, but Plasmas do not exhibit the look I am talking about.

What I'm probably describing is the way that brighter lines are subtly thicker than dimmer ones, are not confined to hard pixel boundaries, and the gaussian beam of a CRT.

This is not the best comparison, because that's not what the intention of these photos was, but this is probably the best explanation I can give.

Single "pixel" spot on a CRT:
spotjoa3h.jpg

As brightness changes, the spot will increase or decrease in size.

Horizontal line on a CRT:
lineuwxpm.jpg

Horizontal lines on an LCD:
linessll3y.jpg

Note how hard the edges are on the LCD, and how the subpixels are uniformly lit. While I don't have access to a Plasma do do the same comparison, a PDP up close like that, looks the same as an LCD—uniformly lit, hard-edged subpixels.
A shadow-mask CRT would have more squared off edges than the aperture grille one photographed here, but still exhibits that "glow" that does not exist on flat panels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Even so, the primary similarity made here is the emmissive architecture of PDP and CRT and the characteristics that it produces. This fundamental difference is really all you need to completely exclude LCD from this comparison. Most of your arguments comparing LD-LCD to a CRT are reaching at best. The only one of merit to me is the cross-talk (blooming + dynamic MLL). Both are fundamental to the device.
Stick to the OP question. With regards the OP question CRT and PDP are very much comparable with regards to reflection from internal surfaces. LCD with color filters and a polarizer is absolutely not.
PDP weighted subfields produce a 60Hz duty cycle flicker that is nearly identical to CRT in presentation.
I find that flicker is far more pronounced on PDP than it ever was on CRT, and when I look at a CRT, it's the dynamic range they offer, the lack of artefacts and smoothness of the image that I notice much more than anything else. A local-dimming full array LED backlit LCD recreates this far better than anything we have available today in my opinion.

I never watched my CRTs at an angle, just like I don't try to watch my LCD at an angle, nor did I try to use them in brightly lit rooms, so neither of those are key to the CRT look for me, the image is what's important to that look for me, not the display panel.
The image on an LCD is far more like a CRT due to the excellent gradation, lack of dither and other artefacts, smaller pixel pitch, the flicker from a scanning backlight is more like high refresh rate CRTs (60Hz flicker is not a desirable trait if it can be avoided while still maintaining low persistence) and lack of jarring motion artefacts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon! View Post

Anyone know which if any plasmas allow you to shut this auto dimming feature off completely, or at least turn it down so it's similar to crt levels?
Can't be done. It's my understanding that Plasmas are not built with power supplies capable of handling the amount of current this would require. (Xrox will likely be able to give you a better answer)
post #55 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Absolutely.
The KRPs used the Direct Color Filter 3+ which was the best filter Pioneer offered. The filter itself is tinted to enhance red reproduction.
I do not have instrumentation that can measure that low accurately, there are many sources which show CRTs capable of better dynamic range than the Kuros. (And it's easy to see in a direct comparison)
I had basically one of each generation 50" Kuro Pioneer made (720p, 1080p gen 1, 1080p and KRP gen 2 iirc) I guess they must all have been "duds"...

You dont have a instument that can measure 5x5 checkerboard for black level ? The way Kevin Miller did at the flat panel shootout , Kevin let an audiance member take the readings ,readings where take off screen , it indicated real work MLL and contrast ratio , your opinoins need some data to back them up , I hope you are not looking at a total blank screen to compare MLL .
post #56 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwknuf6 View Post

You dont have a instument that can measure 5x5 checkerboard for black level ? The way Kevin Miller did at the flat panel shootout , Kevin let an audiance member take the readings ,readings where take off screen , it indicated real work MLL and contrast ratio , your opinoins need some data to back them up , I hope you are not looking at a total blank screen to compare MLL .
No, I don't have $6,000 (previously $10,000) to purchase a Klein K10, sorry.

And a 5x5 checkerboard measures ANSI contrast, not On-Off contrast. (dynamic range) You would probably be lucky to measure 200:1 on a CRT with that test.
While some modern displays "cheat" with their On-Off measurements now, CRTs do not.
Edited by Chronoptimist - 7/25/12 at 9:47am
post #57 of 80
I think the glow your talking about is probably a downside of crt hurting it's overall resolution rather than helping it.
I'm not sure why you want to keep argueing this to be honest. Nearly all of your arguments have been defunct.

Color breakup/phosphor lag is also present on crt's (I'd upload a photo but don't seem to have the functionality biggrin.gif ).

Modern led lcds dynamic range is due to the light system not the panel, as is the scanning backlight. There are various artefacts that have already been discussed arising from these back light tricks like blooming and nearly halving the brightness of the screen (scanning backlight).

There are very few people who see flicker on a plasma as far as i'm aware there is technology in place specifically to mitigate it on plasmas where as crt gave a noticeable flicker for most at 60hz. In your "quest" to convince everyone that lcd is similar to crt by discussing blooming and static contrast you have basically been discussing all the problems and issues that an lcd (or it's backlight system) has that make it more like a crt.

The only things you think the plasma does worse then a crt is dimming the screen in a bright scene, dynamic range, flicker and motion artefacts. Well, here's my take: Even with a dimmed white screen a plasma is still brighter than a crt, due to that brightness a plasma may well have more dynamic range and far better static range, plasmas have specific technology to combat flicker that crt's never had but it is still there where as lcd tech DOES NOT flicker, color breakup occurs on the crt's as well. Everyone here has been discussing the technology that displays the image not the fancy back light system that shines through it. Yes the back light may very well be similar to a crt biggrin.gif No the panel technology is NOT.

Some of your opinions seem very black and white as well, most people would say a plasma displays a deep shade of black not grey and there are very good ips lcd panels out there that can provide good viewing angles (they aren't used much due to a lower static contrast ratio around 1000:1 vs 3000:1 for va). The Sharp elite doesn't have horrible viewing angles either.
post #58 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

I think the glow your talking about is probably a downside of crt hurting it's overall resolution rather than helping it.
I never said it helped it, I said that it was distinct to the CRT look, and is part of why the image is so smooth, even when displaying low resolution content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

Color breakup/phosphor lag is also present on crt's (I'd upload a photo but don't seem to have the functionality biggrin.gif ).
CRTs can exhibit phosphor trailing, which is primarily a dull green after-image when bright objects move over a dark background. I have never seen color break-up.

Here is an example of a Plasma compared with what seems to be a particularly bad CRT:
QpHU6.jpg

An LCD would show only a white bar in this test, and depending on the panel, may have soft edges.

Plasmas actually show distinctly separate images, and the color separation is bright yellow-green and blue.

And a Plasma showing color separation with a relatively bright image:
HhaVQ.jpg

Note how you have completely distinct images there, with blue on the leading edge of the motion and green on the trailing edge. With CRTs, you only get a dull green trailing edge when bright objects move over black, and there would be none in that scene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

Modern led lcds dynamic range is due to the light system not the panel, as is the scanning backlight. There are various artefacts that have already been discussed arising from these back light tricks like blooming and nearly halving the brightness of the screen (scanning backlight).
I don't have the time to measure it right now, but the scanning backlight system on my Sony LCD has two options, and I'm pretty sure it's not anywhere near a 50% brightness drop. (I may get measurements on this later) Even on the "dimmest" setting, I can still hit correct brightness levels with ease. (100 nits)

As previously mentioned, blooming is an artefact also found on CRTs, and is something that contributes to the image and the "look" so while it is not ideal, it is definitely "CRT-like".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

plasmas have specific technology to combat flicker that crt's never had
Please detail this, because I have always found flicker to be worse when comparing 60Hz Plasma & CRT, and it certainly loses when compared to high refresh (100Hz+) CRT. (when you increase refresh rate on Plasmas, gradation is significantly impacted)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

but it is still there where as lcd tech DOES NOT flicker
Backlight scanning introduces flicker with LCDs by design. I definitely notice it on my HX900 in a dark room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

Everyone here has been discussing the technology that displays the image not the fancy back light system that shines through it. Yes the back light may very well be similar to a crt biggrin.gif No the panel technology is NOT.
The final image is what is important. The image from something like an HX900 when viewed on-axis is far more CRT-like than any Plasma I have owned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

most people would say a plasma displays a deep shade of black not grey
Black from a display is the absence of light. Plasmas still glow in a dark room. Modern plasmas are certainly better than older generations of flat panel, but the black level still isn't good enough in my opinion, and certainly not comparable to CRT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

and there are very good ips lcd panels out there that can provide good viewing angles (they aren't used much due to a lower static contrast ratio around 1000:1 vs 3000:1 for va). The Sharp elite doesn't have horrible viewing angles either.
All LCDs have poor viewing angles, even IPS. LCDs which use local dimming are especially poor when viewed off-axis—some would argue worse than LCDs which don't use local dimming.
post #59 of 80
I've never seen phosphor trailing that bad on a plasma eek.gif Phosphor trailing on my px80u was slightly more noticeable than on my hitachi crt rear pro given 10 years i would wager the plasma would be exactly the same. I don't think lcd's are crt like at all. Crt's had more even blooming not like what is on an lcd.
Sub field drive addresses flicker. I know that backlight scanning introduces flicker but it isn't desirable. Lcd's operate by blocking light where as crt and plasma are emissive tech. Black to me is dependant on the amount of light it is being compared to, if something looks black on a sunny day then it is in my opinion black, mll isn't subjective. I don't agree that all lcds have "poor" viewing angles, viewing angles can be very good just not perfect. Nearly everything you have said about lcd's and crt's being similar is a negative agains't both lcd's and crt's. Plasma tech is similar to crt tech regardless of the lighting system used, specific lcds may be similar as well but there has to be some things that lcds actually do better, right?
Why not mention the static contrast of the sharp elite that clocks in higher than even the best plasmas. Or the sharpness of lcds?
That would hurt your argument wouldn't it? If plasmas aren't similar to crt's other than a slightly higher black level and a bit more phosphor lag then lcds certianly aren't similar either.
Edited by Mik James - 7/25/12 at 12:53pm
post #60 of 80
Similarities
Full Array LED backlit local-dimming LCD:
  • Smooth gradation
  • No dither/noise added to the image
  • Extremely high dynamic range (on-off contrast)
  • Reduced ANSI contrast vs On-Off contrast (blooming)
  • Fine pixel pitch for a smoother image. All fixed-pixel devices are sharper than CRTs, but the finer the pixel-pitch, the more natural, and smoother the image appears. Moving to 4K panels further improves this smoothness. (there are 4K LCDs on the market now)
  • No ABL by default, optionally a weak ABL that better emulates a CRT response than the harsh ABL of a Plasma.
  • Subtle, but visible flicker (backlight scanning) though completely optional.
  • Optically bonded front glass imparts a "CRT look" to the panel. (Sony models only)
  • Optically bonded front glass imparts a "CRT look"
Plasma
  • Self-emissive, so similar viewing angles.
  • Cannot handle high levels of ambient light well.


Differences
Full Array LED backlit local-dimming LCD:
  • Terrible viewing angles.
  • Fixed pixel display
  • Worse motion handling (images can blur with fast motion)
  • Retains high contrast image in a bright room, unlike CRT or PDP.
Plasma
  • Fixed pixel display
  • Worse motion handling (images blur, and suffer from color break-up)
  • Image is dithered
  • Poor gradation, particularly at high refresh rates.
  • Strong ABL, dimming the picture far more than CRTs.
  • Lower contrast, cannot display true black.


As someone who loves how a good CRT looks, and sometimes wishes that he still had one, I do not like the look of a Plasma display. It's not that I am an LCD fan, I will happily ditch them when something better comes along, but Plasmas just aren't CRT-like—at least in the areas of image quality that matter to me such as gradation and dynamic range, rather than negative traits such as having a very visible flicker (worse than CRT) and a poor image in a bright room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

nearly halving the brightness of the screen (scanning backlight).
Measured my panel and you are right.

In its calibrated state, it is at 100nits using the dimmest backlight scanning mode. Switching to the brighter mode (less flicker) increases to 185nits, and disabling it, increases to 270 nits. Didn't check to see what the maximum brightness was when using it though, as I have no need to go brighter than that.

And going from a calibrated state of 100 nits, the low ABL setting drops brightness ~7.5% with a full field white pattern, the medium setting drops brightness ~15% and high drops brightness by ~30%, if this is a CRT-trait that you wish to emulate. Personally I find it detrimental to the image and not a trait I want in a display. The better a CRT was, the less aggressive the ABL was.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

I've never seen phosphor trailing that bad on a plasma eek.gif
That's how just about every Plasma looks to me, just like DLP shows RGB separation to some people. (myself included, though I find it less intrusive than Plasma "phosphor lag")
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

Crt's had more even blooming not like what is on an lcd.
Yes, but if we are talking "CRT-like", having the degree of blooming that a full array local-dimming LCD has, is much more CRT-like than not having any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

Sub field drive addresses flicker.
Not at all. Those "600Hz" or "2500Hz" numbers are not comparable to CRT refresh rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

I know that backlight scanning introduces flicker but it isn't desirable.
Actually, it is desirable. Without backlight scanning, you have very high image persistence on the retina, which is perceived as motion blur. Introducing the right amount adds a barely perceptible flicker (many people don't even notice it) but considerably improves perceived motion handling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

Black to me is dependant on the amount of light it is being compared to, if something looks black on a sunny day then it is in my opinion black, mll isn't subjective.
OK then, if you are comparing it to the darkness of the bezel in a dark room, "black" on plasmas is anything but. If the panel is glowing, it isn't black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

I don't agree that all lcds have "poor" viewing angles, viewing angles can be very good just not perfect.
No LCD has good viewing angles. IPS is best, but still poor compared to CRT/PDP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

Why not mention the static contrast of the sharp elite that clocks in higher than even the best plasmas.
Pretty sure I have been talking about that when saying that full array local-dimming LED backlit LCDs are the only displays comparable to CRTs in terms of dynamic range.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › What flat panel looks closest to a CRT?