AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › What flat panel looks closest to a CRT?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What flat panel looks closest to a CRT? - Page 3

post #61 of 80
7/25/12 at 7:08pm
Well you've certianly convinced me that some led lcd's can have alot in common with a crt but you also listed alot of reasons why an lcd is different. There doesn't seem to be a completely right answer to this argument, there are to many points for both plasma and lcd being similar to crt and also improving on crt's in many areas.

You mention dithering as a point against plasma, why do you think plasma would be any worse for gradation than an lcd? Is there something about the technology that I don't know about? I always thought all digital displays had some degree of dithering and it depends on the shades of gray they can display (of which plasmas always seem to have the highest number).

The deepest displays i've ever owned are a va panel capable of 0.03 cd and my current crt (god knows biggrin.gif) For me, in a dark room the va panel was on the verge of being near perfect for most content other than a black screen or very dark scenes. Even then it was percievable as black to me in the center of the screen when compared to the bezel in a dark room. (you think elites have bad viewing angles, check out the benq ew2420 biggrin.gif) I can only imagine that a display that measures 0.0005 ftl or 0.0017 cd (http://www.avsforum.com/t/1250816/black-level-measurements-of-recent-lcds-and-plasmas-enjoy) would be more than deep enough in nearly any situation, maybe the lesser kuro's that measure 0.1 cd wouldn't do it for me though.

I'll take the color breakup over the backlight scanning, sub field drive addresses flicker, it has nothing to do with how many unique images hit the screen only how many times the pixels light up per frame.

Blooming on lcds shouldn't effect ansi checkerboard contrast, their is more than enough dimming zones to provide very high static contrast throughout the image with only minor edge blooming, which is where it differs from a crt.

Lcds are also far brighter than crts and plasmas, I can probably provide 50 reasons why lcds and crts are so different for the 5-6 you've been posting since the beggining of the thread, given enough time of course biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #62 of 80
7/25/12 at 9:18pm
While I can't argue technically as a few here are so valiantly doing...my old CRT viewing, which I never wish to experience again unless the tech is improved (which isn't likely) plasma is my vote. I have an LCD set, and exchanged another latest greatest last year due to crap issues inherent in LCD (blooming/flashlighting/poor black levels) and went with plasma which is very nice for me...

I had a 32" Trinitron for years and hated the bulk for relatively small screen, especially when viewing wide screen materials. Then I inherited a large RP 1000 line resolution CRT set with burn in which after a while and some audio upgrades made me upgrade the display as well. I tried a upper end offering from Samsung (60C6300) in LCD but hated the darkened room experience due to flashlighting/clouding/poor black levels and went with a 59D8000 plasma, couldn't be happier especially for film (don't watch a lot of mainstream sports or SD stuff anyways). Plasma much more film like than CRT and that's the point with me as I was never satisfied with CRT even if the supposed black levels were superior in a technical sense (visually for me they aren't even close to HD flat panels of either LCD or plasma orientation). I have no interest in watching video at such a close distance to want anything less than approx 60" diag...YMMV.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 80
7/26/12 at 12:00pm
I just can't agree with Chronoptimist that plasmas, at least my 151, don't look like a CRT. But we all different taste and expectations.

The kuro has the most CRT like picture i've ever seen. And better than the ones thats still in my house. And i have to seriously laugh at LCD's are more CRT like. Every single LCD i've seen has an artificial look to them. Even the so called "elite" LCD from sharp. They just don't have the natural smooth picture like plasmas........which looks like a CRT!

Now maby your arguing specifications of CRT that favor LCD (xrox seemed to dispute those) which i admit i don't fully understand. But man does the image on my kuro tell me different. And tell ALOT of other people also.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 80
7/26/12 at 12:19pm
saprano with all due respect:
Chronoptimist is on a one man crusade to convince no one that the CRT is the best display.
How anyone can even compare a 50" or 60" Pioneer Kuro to a 34" HD CRT is just plain silly.
How does he miss the fact that NO HD CRT ever had a full 1080 resolution?
And anyone who states LCD's are more CRT like is nuts!
Edited by sonyfan - 8/4/12 at 12:45am
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 80
7/26/12 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

You mention dithering as a point against plasma, why do you think plasma would be any worse for gradation than an lcd? Is there something about the technology that I don't know about? I always thought all digital displays had some degree of dithering and it depends on the shades of gray they can display (of which plasmas always seem to have the highest number).
Plasmas create gradation by building up the image over several subframes. This is why, when you increase the refresh rate above 60Hz, gradation performance suffers, because they get less subfields per frame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

I'll take the color breakup over the backlight scanning, sub field drive addresses flicker, it has nothing to do with how many unique images hit the screen only how many times the pixels light up per frame.
I'm really confused by this. Plasmas flicker significantly more than any LCD whether it's using backlight scanning or not.

Backlight scanning is considerably more similar to the way CRTs draw their image, rather than the progressively updated image a PDP has.

Slow motion CRT footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVS6QewZsi4
Slow motion Plasma footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGpdah32n3c

I couldn't find any good slow motion footage of an LCD's scanning backlight, and I don't have the required equipment to take a direct video of my own LCD (I can't control my camera settings when it records video) so I had to improvise by recording a video of my camera pointed at the screen, which works to illustrate the similarities of backlight scanning compared to CRT.
scanningqujiu.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

Blooming on lcds shouldn't effect ansi checkerboard contrast, their is more than enough dimming zones to provide very high static contrast throughout the image with only minor edge blooming, which is where it differs from a crt.
Even if you have one zone light up in a corner, it will affect the other corner of the screen to some degree. The zones don't have hard borders, there's a diffusion layer above the LED zones. (otherwise there would be a very noticeable grid effect)
ANSI contrast is significantly higher than CRT, but there is definitely a reduction in ANSI contrast vs On-Off contrast due to blooming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

While I can't argue technically as a few here are so valiantly doing...my old CRT viewing, which I never wish to experience again unless the tech is improved (which isn't likely) plasma is my vote. I have an LCD set, and exchanged another latest greatest last year due to crap issues inherent in LCD (blooming/flashlighting/poor black levels) and went with plasma which is very nice for me...
It sounds like you had an Edge LED set, which is in no way comparable to a Full Array Local-Dimming LED Backlit LCD. They may as well be two different types of display. I have a couple of Edge LED sets in my home (which I do not personally use) and they are awful displays in my opinion. Flat, low contrast image with poor motion handling (neither supports backlight scanning) but we needed a couple of cheaper displays that could be used to display static images without risk of image retention, and could handle high levels of ambient light well.

I really have to question whether anyone in here has actually looked at any of the high-end local dimming options (particularly Sony's—while lower contrast, they have much better image processing/colour than the elite in my opinion) or if they are just going off their experience with other LCD displays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Plasma much more film like than CRT and that's the point with me as I was never satisfied with CRT even if the supposed black levels were superior in a technical sense (visually for me they aren't even close to HD flat panels of either LCD or plasma orientation)
To me, this suggests that you did not experience a good high-end, properly calibrated CRT. And when you say that Plasma is "much more film like than CRT" do you actually mean that you think the image is closer to a film projection, or do you really mean to say "I prefer how films look on my Plasma" similar to how a lot of people in here are saying that "Plasmas are more CRT-like than LED Backlit LCDs" without actually having done any kind of comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

I have no interest in watching video at such a close distance to want anything less than approx 60" diag...YMMV.
I agree that sitting further back from larger displays is a better viewing experience. But size has never really been a concern for me with direct-view displays. As soon as I actually want a big image, I would be looking into projectors. Even with 60" panels, you still have to sit relatively close to the display to fill a good amount of your vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonyfan View Post

And anyone who states LCD's are more CRT like is nuts!
I did not make the blanket statement that LCDs are CRT-like, the vast majority of them are anything but. The best Full Array Local-Dimming LED Backlit LCDs are more CRT-like than Plasmas in my opinion, at least in the areas that matter to me such as smoothness of the image, visual artefacts and contrast. Most LCDs are terrible displays.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 80
7/26/12 at 7:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyguy83 View Post

I have three Sony HD CRT televisions, and I love the picture that each one produces. However, I know the day is coming when they'll die. I'm hoping they'll hold out long enough for other technologies to produce a picture that's equivalent to CRT technology, but in the mean time, does anyone know of a TV that comes close? Specifically, I'm looking for a TV that can reproduce the type of motion and black levels that a HD CRT can produce. I hate motion blur and that flat, video-like look that a lot of LCDs produce, so I'm guessing that a plasma is probably my best bet. I don't want a really large TV, either (42" is the max I'd want), because I watch a lot of SD content and would like to find a TV that produces a quality image for regular DVDs like the CRT does, and it seems that the larger the television goes, the worse the SD picture gets.
Any help would be much appreciated.

All fixed pixel displays will look worse when displaying nonnative resolutions. The scaling leaves artifacts which can look bad.

The nice thing about CRTs is everything is native, they can change scan rate to match the source. They also have rounded edges on the pixels giving a nice almost anti-aliasing effect. All of the fixed pixel displays will have squared off sharp edged blocky pixels at lower resolution making things look blockier and more jagged than they looked on the CRT. I would keep the CRTs until they croak, by then something closer to CRT such as Crystal LED or OLED may be an option.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 80
7/26/12 at 8:20pm
That's some neat footage there chrono, I had been looking for a good illustration of plasma sub field drive for a while.
Well you've proven it, the final image on a very high end Led LCD can be considered very CRT like other than less even blooming, a sharper picture, higher resolution as well as lesser off axis viewing (not all lcds have poor viewing angles when compared to a lot of low end lcds) and much higher static contrast.
For me a plasma is CRT like as well though due to the softer image, the existence of color breakup on both crt's and Plasmas, and the perfect viewing angles.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 80
7/26/12 at 10:01pm
Kumbaya? tongue.gif
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 80
7/27/12 at 1:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

You mention dithering as a point against plasma, why do you think plasma would be any worse for gradation than an lcd? Is there something about the technology that I don't know about? I always thought all digital displays had some degree of dithering and it depends on the shades of gray they can display (of which plasmas always seem to have the highest number).
Plasmas create gradation by building up the image over several subframes. This is why, when you increase the refresh rate above 60Hz, gradation performance suffers, because they get less subfields per frame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

I'll take the color breakup over the backlight scanning, sub field drive addresses flicker, it has nothing to do with how many unique images hit the screen only how many times the pixels light up per frame.
I'm really confused by this. Plasmas flicker significantly more than any LCD whether it's using backlight scanning or not.

Backlight scanning is considerably more similar to the way CRTs draw their image, rather than the progressively updated image a PDP has.

Slow motion CRT footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVS6QewZsi4
Slow motion Plasma footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGpdah32n3c

I couldn't find any good slow motion footage of an LCD's scanning backlight, and I don't have the required equipment to take a direct video of my own LCD (I can't control my camera settings when it records video) so I had to improvise by recording a video of my camera pointed at the screen, which works to illustrate the similarities of backlight scanning compared to CRT.
scanningqujiu.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

Blooming on lcds shouldn't effect ansi checkerboard contrast, their is more than enough dimming zones to provide very high static contrast throughout the image with only minor edge blooming, which is where it differs from a crt.
Even if you have one zone light up in a corner, it will affect the other corner of the screen to some degree. The zones don't have hard borders, there's a diffusion layer above the LED zones. (otherwise there would be a very noticeable grid effect)
ANSI contrast is significantly higher than CRT, but there is definitely a reduction in ANSI contrast vs On-Off contrast due to blooming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

While I can't argue technically as a few here are so valiantly doing...my old CRT viewing, which I never wish to experience again unless the tech is improved (which isn't likely) plasma is my vote. I have an LCD set, and exchanged another latest greatest last year due to crap issues inherent in LCD (blooming/flashlighting/poor black levels) and went with plasma which is very nice for me...
It sounds like you had an Edge LED set, which is in no way comparable to a Full Array Local-Dimming LED Backlit LCD. They may as well be two different types of display. I have a couple of Edge LED sets in my home (which I do not personally use) and they are awful displays in my opinion. Flat, low contrast image with poor motion handling (neither supports backlight scanning) but we needed a couple of cheaper displays that could be used to display static images without risk of image retention, and could handle high levels of ambient light well.

I really have to question whether anyone in here has actually looked at any of the high-end local dimming options (particularly Sony's—while lower contrast, they have much better image processing/colour than the elite in my opinion) or if they are just going off their experience with other LCD displays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Plasma much more film like than CRT and that's the point with me as I was never satisfied with CRT even if the supposed black levels were superior in a technical sense (visually for me they aren't even close to HD flat panels of either LCD or plasma orientation)
To me, this suggests that you did not experience a good high-end, properly calibrated CRT. And when you say that Plasma is "much more film like than CRT" do you actually mean that you think the image is closer to a film projection, or do you really mean to say "I prefer how films look on my Plasma" similar to how a lot of people in here are saying that "Plasmas are more CRT-like than LED Backlit LCDs" without actually having done any kind of comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

I have no interest in watching video at such a close distance to want anything less than approx 60" diag...YMMV.
I agree that sitting further back from larger displays is a better viewing experience. But size has never really been a concern for me with direct-view displays. As soon as I actually want a big image, I would be looking into projectors. Even with 60" panels, you still have to sit relatively close to the display to fill a good amount of your vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonyfan View Post

And anyone who states LCD's are more CRT like is nuts!
I did not make the blanket statement that LCDs are CRT-like, the vast majority of them are anything but. The best Full Array Local-Dimming LED Backlit LCDs are more CRT-like than Plasmas in my opinion, at least in the areas that matter to me such as smoothness of the image, visual artefacts and contrast. Most LCDs are terrible displays.

No, I didn't get a full array, although I was thinking along those lines but got an edge lit LED. My LCD with CCFL was better. You just like small CRTs? I dont have a good spot for a projector so that's not happening. CRT is just crap for what's available...you still have not been able to provide any reasonable sets to consider. 24" is just silly. My computer monitor on my laptop is nearly that big. Sony is just lost, wouldn't buy from them until they straighten out their company.

The LCDs are not great at film and either are CRTs IME, the plasma hit a home run on that front. Plasmas are just better than CRTs and LCDs in my opinion for film. CRTs could possibly be better but they just aren't being made to compete any more...they're dead ducks.
Edited by lovinthehd - 7/27/12 at 1:21am
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 80
7/30/12 at 1:07pm
Like I said before, the emissive nature of a PDP and CRT totally eliminate LCD in any form from this discussion. OLED, FED, SED, PDP are all more characteristically similar to CRT than LCD will ever be. This does not mean that PDP is better than LCD (which is what most of these posts are really arguing wink.gif)

To say otherwise means you must be prioritizing one or maybe a few performance metrics while totally ignoring the fundamental architecture and characteristics of emissive displays.

PDP similarities to CRT by general category:

Device Architecture and resulting attributes
- emissive architecture (fundamentally different than all LCDs)
- RGB phosphor surface emitters
- reflective inter and intra pixel surfaces
- AR filter coating on glass
- no color filters
- no polarizers
- wide viewing angle
- uniformity at all viewing angles
- stable contrast at all viewing angles
- lack of mura

Device Driving
- 60Hz impulse driving
- 60Hz duty cycle flicker
- Judder due to 60Hz frame rate and duty cycle combination


Again, device architecture of CRT and PDP are so similar and both so fundamentally different than LCD that even if a LCD is purposely designed to mimick a CRT I would still say that PDP is more like a CRT.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 80
7/30/12 at 6:34pm
The problem is, the op asked "what flat panel looks closest to a crt" not which flat panel is the most like a crt overall or which flat panel technology looks/is the most like a crt. Chrono actually has alot of good points about some specific led lcds displaying an image similar to that of crt's.

Also i find a plasma looks closer to a crt in the way it handles shade transitions. As far as i'm aware an lcd performs alot worse in the motion performance area when transitioning from black to white versus gray to gray where as a plasma performs alot more like a crt in my experience.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 80
7/30/12 at 7:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

The problem is, the op asked "what flat panel looks closest to a crt" not which flat panel is the most like a crt overall or which flat panel technology looks/is the most like a crt. Chrono actually has alot of good points about some specific led lcds displaying an image similar to that of crt's.

Also i find a plasma looks closer to a crt in the way it handles shade transitions. As far as i'm aware an lcd performs alot worse in the motion performance area when transitioning from black to white versus gray to gray where as a plasma performs alot more like a crt in my experience.

Yes. I was just thinking about this and how it actually related to the OP's request, as I couldn't even remember what it asked specifically and why I looked again. So just to make it easy to reconsider:

I have three Sony HD CRT televisions, and I love the picture that each one produces. However, I know the day is coming when they'll die. I'm hoping they'll hold out long enough for other technologies to produce a picture that's equivalent to CRT technology, but in the mean time, does anyone know of a TV that comes close? Specifically, I'm looking for a TV that can reproduce the type of motion and black levels that a HD CRT can produce. I hate motion blur and that flat, video-like look that a lot of LCDs produce, so I'm guessing that a plasma is probably my best bet. I don't want a really large TV, either (42" is the max I'd want), because I watch a lot of SD content and would like to find a TV that produces a quality image for regular DVDs like the CRT does, and it seems that the larger the television goes, the worse the SD picture gets.

Any help would be much appreciated.


So....I think I'd recommend to wait for those CRTs to die...but I think plasma, generally, and my PN59D8000 particularly, with some caveats as to use and expectations, can do a better job...IME.
Edited by lovinthehd - 7/30/12 at 7:47pm
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 80
7/30/12 at 11:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

The problem is, the op asked "what flat panel looks closest to a crt" not which flat panel is the most like a crt overall or which flat panel technology looks/is the most like a crt. Chrono actually has alot of good points about some specific led lcds displaying an image similar to that of crt's.
Thank you. I agree that some of the fundamental technologies of Plasma are more similar to CRT, but I don't agree that the final image is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James View Post

Also i find a plasma looks closer to a crt in the way it handles shade transitions. As far as i'm aware an lcd performs alot worse in the motion performance area when transitioning from black to white versus gray to gray where as a plasma performs alot more like a crt in my experience.
I think it depends on the display. My LCD handles black-to-white transitions very well, the PixPerAn reading test is perfectly clear even at maximum speed, as long as I have backlight scanning enabled, for example. It's quite an interesting test actually, it's a complete blur at 60Hz, and there's only minimal improvement when you turn on motion interpolation (120/240Hz) but as soon as you enable backlight scanning (240/480Hz) everything snaps into focus. I'd recommend that you try running the test yourself to see just how fast it is at maximum speed—it's a lot quicker than any of the resolution test videos I've used.

Unfortunately, it's really difficult to get good high-speed photographs of an LCD when backlight scanning is being used. The majority ended up either being a completely black screen, or looking something like this:
dimqrku3.jpg

Even the better ones have dim horizontal bands in the image that make it look like there are severe uniformity problems, but the panel doesn't look like that at all to the eye.

Here's the clearest image I was able to get out of about 200 photos. (not quite as bad as it sounds, my camera can shoot 7fps)
backlightoljt0.jpg

Even then, it looks like my camera was misaligned as the edges are out of focus (particularly the right hand side) because I had to shoot with a very narrow depth of field to get enough light. It's not motion blur, check the top right corner which is static.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

So....I think I'd recommend to wait for those CRTs to die...
Absolutely, and that would be my recommendation too. There just isn't anything that fully replicates how a CRT looks. It's just my opinion that a good full-array LED backlit LCD will give you the most CRT-like image of any display you can buy today, and I say that as someone who held onto his CRTs until they died a couple of years back, due to being dissatisfied with flat panels. To be clear though, I do not think that regular LCDs or Edge LED sets are CRT-like in the slightest, only full-array local dimming sets. (and even more specifically, Sony's are the most CRT-like)

If you don't want/can't afford/can't find one of the full array local dimming sets, a Plasma is probably your best option rather than an Edge LED set, as long as you can tolerate their issues.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 80
7/31/12 at 2:10am
How do LCD's with vs. without IPS panels affect how similar these attributes are to CRT's? I see you specifically mentioned Sony, who afaik have abandoned IPS completely in the past 2 (3?) years, so I'm guessing either adversely or not at all. I know they're not as good with motion, but I still prefer them. IDK about being crt like, not to the extent of plasmas anyway.

All the different coatings, glare filters, gloss vs. matte etc. might have something to do with how crt-like different sets can look too.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 80
7/31/12 at 5:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon! View Post

How do LCD's with vs. without IPS panels affect how similar these attributes are to CRT's? I see you specifically mentioned Sony, who afaik have abandoned IPS completely in the past 2 (3?) years, so I'm guessing either adversely or not at all.
Personally, I see little benefit from IPS panels. They reduce color and gamma shifting off-axis, but you still have brightness & contrast loss, and the panels themselves top out around 1,000:1 which isn't enough to make a local-dimming system work well without a distracting level of haloing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon! View Post

I know they're not as good with motion, but I still prefer them.
I definitely prefer motion on IPS panels vs S-PVA, which Samsung and most Sony displays have been using. Part of the reason I like the HX900 so much is that it uses a Sharp UV2A panel rather than S-PVA which has much better response times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon! View Post

All the different coatings, glare filters, gloss vs. matte etc. might have something to do with how crt-like different sets can look too.
It absolutely does, and this goes back to why I specifically mention Sony panels, because they use a pane of glass bonded (this is important) to the LCD panel, rather than simply putting a pane of glass over the display as other companies do (such as Apple with their iPads, MacBook Pros and monitors) or having a direct-view matte/glossy finished panel.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 80
7/31/12 at 11:03am
I have pix per an around here somewhere, let me just sift through my hardrives tongue.gif
I unfortunately don't have the plasma any more to test with, all i have around is my crt rear pro, most of my testing has been more real world in the past, I play alot if stealth games (thief, splinter cell, skyrim with lighting mods) and they provided a really good scenario for black to white response testing.

On the average run of the mill lcd like the va panel I had black to white ghosting was horrible (to be expected on such a cheap panel) The px80u plasma I had didn't really get all that deep but didn't show any more ghosting or color breakup on black to white scenes. The main issue with the px80u was ghosting on extremely dark scenes where the removal of the pre charge (fade to black) would kick in and ghosting would appear on dark details still barely visible in a dark room.
As long as the pixels are pre charged to the optimum level dependant on the panel there was no ghosting to speak of regardless of shade transitions.

The crt is also perfect in this regard. The only anomaly i've noticed on the crt (other than color breakup) is a weird after image effect in extremely high contrast situations where there is a very small light source (a bright lamp on a dark night). It can be replicated with a mouse pointer on a black screen, by moving the mouse pointer quickly around the screen you can create 20-30 distinct after images that take a few seconds to fade.

I'm starting to wonder if the color breakup visible on rear projection crt's has more to do with slight anomalies in the timing of the guns where as a direct view uses one tube?
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 80
8/29/12 at 5:28am
I'm not sure if a display with a highest resolution is really the best for upscaling low native resolutions. I own an FW900 myself too but even from 'that CRT', upscaling artifact was the most obvious when viewed at the highest resolution.
DVDs for example, of course looks the best when viewed at 640*480, but even at an odd scaling resolution such as 800*600 or 1024*768 still looks better to me than 1600*1200 or 1920*1080. Even with a CRT, upscaling artifacts annoy me a lot when viewing low-res contents at 1080p or higher. I play a lot of classic console games , and even an FW900 disappoints me simply with those because it can't natively view 320*240 (15hz) sources. One thing I appreciate CRTs for is their natural blurry look regardless of how low the source resolution is as long as the display can natively display said resolution, and while far more disappointing than CRTs in this regard, plasmas also exhibit this character up to certain extent. I've once played with a 1024*768 LG plasma and while its odd aspect ratio did hurt 720p/1080p images, 480p contents came out great in comparison. It's got that distinct natural blurry look I was used to with a CRT. LCDs always are too clean for their scaled images. Even with a low res LCD, I could always spot those added vivid details. A well calibrated FW900 can have details almost as good as an LCD, so upscaling a low-res content to a high resolution look not really different from an LCD, I do not like scalings at all regardless of a display.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 80
8/29/12 at 10:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

I'm not sure if a display with a highest resolution is really the best for upscaling low native resolutions. I own an FW900 myself too but even from 'that CRT', upscaling artifact was the most obvious when viewed at the highest resolution.
DVDs for example, of course looks the best when viewed at 640*480, but even at an odd scaling resolution such as 800*600 or 1024*768 still looks better to me than 1600*1200 or 1920*1080.
It sounds like you are comparing these on the CRT itself. When upscaling on a flat panel, you want to have the highest resolution possible. It doesn’t necessarily apply to CRTs, and it depends on the type of content you are watching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

I've once played with a 1024*768 LG plasma and while its odd aspect ratio did hurt 720p/1080p images, 480p contents came out great in comparison. It's got that distinct natural blurry look I was used to with a CRT. LCDs always are too clean for their scaled images.
Plasmas have hard-edged pixels just like LCDs, I think you must be describing something else. (perhaps you like the screen-door effect?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

I do not like scalings at all regardless of a display.
With games or other computer generated content, I agree with you. With film, I think we are past the point now where the upscaled image looks better than the native resolution.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 80
8/29/12 at 11:36am
I no longer use my FW900 as I've moved to Dell U2311 monitor as a temporary solution before purchasing a plasma, but I put FW900 as an example since it was mentioned. I spend my time far more on LCD laptop screens and monitors so I know how painful it is to use video scalers on LCD displays. I did go through a 46 inch Sony LCD, and several plasmas in conjunction with several high-end video scalers in hope of replacing my CRT monitor with classic games, but that was definitely a no go.

Plasmas may also have hard-edges around pixels, but they are not as razor sharp as LCDs. For HD games, this proved detrimental as they were a bit too soft for my taste. In a very close distance, screen doors were more noticable on LCDs. All three display types clearly differ when it comes to pixel fill-rate. I find a CRT's pixel look strikes the best middle balance between a plasma and an LCD, but it was great to see that all my classic games looked at least acceptable on plasmas, something I wouldn't say for LCDs,and OLEDs.

With film being much softer than CG games, yeah, I guess it's really a toss-up, as it gets much harder to notice screen doors for HD videos. But for DVDs, (especially the bad ones) LCDs are too revealing, plasmas less so, but still gives off a digital look. Pardon me for keep mentioning my CRT, but the reason is because a CRT monitor is an excellent display to compare a source at a native resolution AND a upscaled one, which I can only make speculations with flat panel displays.

Part of the blame I think that the LCDs get for being too exposing is because of scorching brighness they can get. CRTs and plasmas are not as bright as a nature, so they wouldn't look too out of place in comparison.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 80
8/29/12 at 9:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

I no longer use my FW900 as I've moved to Dell U2311 monitor as a temporary solution before purchasing a plasma, but I put FW900 as an example since it was mentioned. I spend my time far more on LCD laptop screens and monitors so I know how painful it is to use video scalers on LCD displays. I did go through a 46 inch Sony LCD, and several plasmas in conjunction with several high-end video scalers in hope of replacing my CRT monitor with classic games, but that was definitely a no go.
Most high-end video scalers are not designed with gaming in mind. They are designed to create a smooth image for video rather than a hard-edged image for old games. If you want hard-edged pixels, I would argue that using a Retrode or other similar device and emulation will give you the best results on a modern display, though it will never look like playing on a CRT, even with some of the more advanced “CRT” filters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

With film being much softer than CG games, yeah, I guess it's really a toss-up, as it gets much harder to notice screen doors for HD videos. But for DVDs, (especially the bad ones) LCDs are too revealing, plasmas less so, but still gives off a digital look. Pardon me for keep mentioning my CRT, but the reason is because a CRT monitor is an excellent display to compare a source at a native resolution AND a upscaled one, which I can only make speculations with flat panel displays.
Upscaling on a CRT works very differently from upscaling on a flat panel though. A flat panel has a fixed pixel structure, whereas a CRT monitor like your FW900 does not—it’s multiscan and actually changes the image it is drawing based on the resolution you send it. Send a CRT a low resolution image and there will be big scanlines, in addition to big pixels. Send a CRT an upscaled image, and the higher resolution reduces the appearance of scanlines over the image, so you are not only going to see upscaling artefacts, the low resolution of the source material will be made more obvious due to the increased clarity of scanning at a higher resolution.

Because you are talking about monitors here, I assume you must be using a PC for playback. Unlike stand-alone players, you have some very flexible options for scaling with madVR.
For example, if you wanted to send 1440×960@72Hz with Nearest Neighbour resampling, you could do that. This will increase the scanning resolution, improving clarity (and likely making the low resolution of the source more apparent) but will not introduce upscaling artefacts.

Alternatively, there are now test builds available which introduce non-ringing scaling algorithms. At 23″ it may still be preferable to use your CRT and be sending it 720×480 rather than upscaling the image, but I would argue that at larger image sizes, images upscaled with madVR—particularly with the new anti-ring option—look better than native resolution on a CRT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

Part of the blame I think that the LCDs get for being too exposing is because of scorching brighness they can get. CRTs and plasmas are not as bright as a nature, so they wouldn't look too out of place in comparison.
That’s true, but that is a calibration issue, not an inherent problem with the technology.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › What flat panel looks closest to a CRT?