or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › Please Bring back CRT TV's Into the Production line Again!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Please Bring back CRT TV's Into the Production line Again! - Page 7

post #181 of 250
if you get a better picture when you down switch your box that just means the box has a better scaler than your TV thats all
post #182 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

if you get a better picture when you down switch your box that just means the box has a better scaler than your TV thats all

Nope. CRTs can actually display in various resolutions unlike flat panels. So I can take a broadcaster sub at 480i (pretty common for many of the stations that show movies all day like THIS and maybe all subs below .1), set my HD tuner output to 480i (or use a converter box), and wala no nasty upconversion to my CRT (upconversion produces artifacts which are magnified 'in my experience' when the source isn't that great). Unlike your flat panel that can only display its native resolution to the best of my knowledge . I've read over and over again that folks say 480i looks better on their CRTs.

US OTA broadcasts, or at least the majority, only support 1080i max., I suspect due to a bandwidth limitation.

Probably, likely, ramblin'
post #183 of 250
People still watching 480i anymore ? More importantly why would they?

I owned both a Sony Trinitron and an FD Trinitron so I know what they can do .
They hande 480i pretty well save for scan lines on 32" and up.
still for ancient Never The Same Color Twice signals they were pretty good that was then. Line doubling helped bit they still dithered just like flat panel can with 480i/480p If all you watch is 480i sub channels then 480i set is for you but what about the rest of the channels ?

It is true flat panels usually aren't that good on 480i better quality sets
tend to handle 480i better . I try not to watch 480i when I have 1080p sets
as for Movies Netflix HD is OK once you go flat panel HD you never go back
(usually any way)
Footbal good in HD

OTA,+ Sat/Cable channels have a lot of older movies re scanned by the content delivery partners into HD now they can look very good.
35mm film is naturally very high resolution so it looks good re scanned.
You start watching some of that on a decent flat panel you will throw rocks at your 480i .

OTA Sub channels usually have very poor quality
because of low bandwidth . OK for B/W Twilight Zone re runs though !

Only 1080i max ? On a good 4K set Sony ,Sammy ,etc Decently upscaled 1080p/1080i to 4k looks pretty good even better than native 1080p
Like it or not 4K is the future no need to rush into it though .1080i/p is fine for a good while yet but it will eventually come to the mainstream down from the premium market just like 1080p did 1080p will be the budget sets of the future like 720p is today They have some 8K in Japan already ,.

OTA 1080i /720p or Sat/cable Hd also on a decent flat panel
blows 480i/480p crt away

I upscale DVD's to 1080p with PS3 on one set and Dedicated PC HD video card on another set they look much better than quality Sony ES DVD SACD player from 2005 .. I no longer use DVD player just PS3 or PC ODD.

Same can be done with BD player. Ofc you need a set that can accept
1080p . Even decent 720p sets especially plasma can play almost anything better than any 480i consumer set .
Edited by tubetwister - 9/8/13 at 11:58am
post #184 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

People still watching 480i anymore ? More importantly why would they?
Do you understand that quite a few High Definition televisions were produced, from 1999 until 2006, using CRT technology? We aren't talking about SD 480i-only CRTs, but 1080i-capable CRTs.

LCD, LED and Plasma displays are less expensive than manufacture and to distirbute than CRT televisions. Not only that, but their footprint in the warehouse and on the sales floor. LCD, LED and plasma televisions are lighter weight and involve major streamlining of assembly-line procedures over CRTs.
post #185 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by seatacboy View Post

Do you understand that quite a few High Definition televisions were produced, from 1999 until 2006, using CRT technology? We aren't talking about SD 480i-only CRTs, but 1080i-capable CRTs.

LCD, LED and Plasma displays are less expensive than manufacture and to distirbute than CRT televisions. Not only that, but their footprint in the warehouse and on the sales floor. LCD, LED and plasma televisions are lighter weight and involve major streamlining of assembly-line procedures over CRTs.

OFC but you were in fact talking about 480i in the particular post I repied to we are discussing no?
I clearly mentioned that I had an FD Trinitron. maybe I should have been more specific and said HD FD trinitron that would in fact have been more correct. more precisely a Sony 36" FD Trinitron WEGA HDTV. that's a long name . I also had a 27" 1994 480i non flat trinitron

I also still have a 34" Sharp 16x9 1080i HD CRT flat screen set it is mostly unused now in a spare bedroom it had
a very good picture as well I suspect it was using an LG made Sony design FD HD Trinitron tube as well. I may see if someone wants it.
CRT's ,HD or not are almost impossible to sell and even not that easy to give away not because of a bad picture but size and weight.
I'm not saying HD CRT is not a good picture I never felt slighted with mine. I did want a bigger screen though . The better newer panels can match and often exceed the consumer HD CRT on HD sources now .


You are welcome to stay with your ~1998 CRT technology if you wish but the majority here at AVS and everywhere else do not share your preferences and you will not be able to convince very many as lots of folks here have had both technologies .
As for your argument that Panels are cheaper to produce that may be true but keep in mind the startup costs for a Panel fab can exceed
$4BN You have to sell a lot of panels to cover that. Not to mention the unsustainable environmental impact of continued CRT production ,
supply chain issues and continued production infrastructure and plant maintenance so there are indeed factors other than cost to consider.

One could have always argued that 480i black and white TV was cheaper than color in the 1950's,1960's I'm sure many did
if that argument had prevailed or even later that 480i sets were cheaper than 1080i sets what would we be watching today?

The lower production costs for LCD/LED not only benefits the producer but the consumers as well.especially that larger panels are available now The marketplace has chosen as it always does .
Edited by tubetwister - 9/8/13 at 10:01pm
post #186 of 250
dbl post
post #187 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by bringbackcrttv View Post

I have just bought a 27" Sony Trinitron Curved 4:3 Aspect Ratio TV for twenty dollars. The picture quality is excellent. My Atari 2600, Nes, Snes and DVD Player works great on this TV. This TV is 13 years old. I still believe that CRT TV's will come back to the production line one day. biggrin.gif

very good set I bought one new had it for 14 yrs was still working good when I gave it up.
post #188 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

People still watching 480i anymore ? More importantly why would they?

Like I said, most of the OTA subs below .1 are 480i and many are movie stations; movies are hard to come by OTA, especially at primetime.
DVDs.
Some of the lower-priced subscription TV packages are SD only; you have to pay a premium for HD dude.

Yes, OTA is 1080 max, and currently most if not all i.

A friend of mine has an LG LED, a few years old, can't believe how great my Panny 34" widescreen HD CRT pic looks.

Gamers love 'em. Low input lag, good color, contrast, etc.
post #189 of 250
Nothing attractive about CRT's. Panasonic 42" 102x768 HD ready set, £350 with 5 years warranty

1) Larger screen
2) No convergence, geometry or focus issues
3) HDMI switching so for source switching you have zero picture degradation (HDMI switcher or AV amp if needed)
4) Thinner
5) Built in media system, view pictures, videos, play music, radio from the TV
6) USB support, use a USB hard drive or flash disc as storage
7) PAL broadcasts look good, only slight rescale to 720p.
8) Can be wall mounted, and intrudes far less into the room that a much smaller CRT, so you can get away with a larger screen.
9) Look fantastic from a computer, far better than any CRT I've seen, as dealing with digital video signal, higher resolution, and resolution set to exactly to that. CRT TV- unless you went for a high end set, stuck with S-Video which generally looked fuzzy, and worse if you went though an amp or s-video switcher, or your source wasn't that great. Even with a budget HDMI source if looks perfect, and can use cheap HDMI cables.

It's quite a basic TV compared to others, no network features.

I cannot think of one major positive on CRT. Better blacks, but correctly setup the plasma offers near black levels, and the other positive things totally outshine CRT.
post #190 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrslig100 View Post

Tell that to my Sony W900!!!
(It might weigh less that the FW900 but its certainly one of the heavyset CRT devices ive ever carried!

Is English your third language? Quick review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post

If your CRT has a curved face you will almost always notice a much lighter weight.

Nothing that is said here is untrue. You might notice the word "almost" in the sentence. Nobody, including me, is surprised when you bring up the exception to an "almost" rule of thumb. Additionally, the W900 is older than the newer, flat Trinitron tubes. The older you get, the heavier you get. There were absolutely tiny, sub-20 inch tubes back in the 50s, that weighed a frigging ton. Newer tech for CRT was geared to making these things smaller, lighter, even portable. The rule of thumb still applies. As the tech was engineered to make these things smaller, it had to be retooled to support the flat tubes. That meant making heavy steel frames around the front.
Quote:
CRT Technology could easily come back if their was competition.
If 1 company bought back CRT's and they sold they all would.

CRT technology already has competition. It lost to its competition. See my posts earlier in this thread if you are confused about that. It lost the competition with consumers, and it lost the competition with manufacturers. What if 1 company brought back CRTs and could not get rid of everything they made? And what if everything they made was a reduced supply for the reduced demand? That would pretty much sink it for any regenerative CRT production or market. It would be wonderful to see, but it is just so far out of the realm of probability that it is not worth hanging on to. Just keep the CRTs you have in good condition for as long as you can. They are in every sense of the word antiques now.
Quote:
CRT's weren't far from being flat:

If CRT was experimented with more today it could easily be made even flatter.

Okay just how long have you been speaking English? That is a flat CRT. Somehow you are confusing the word "thin" with the word "flat." They aren't the same word and they don't mean the same thing. It really is of little importance to me how thin a CRT is, but this is part of its competitive handicap, now that many people have mounted a television on a wall without the assistance of furniture or losing an entire corner of their living room, they are reluctant to give that up. And please, reread everything I said about "flat" CRTs with the realization of what flat means, I am not referring to the thinness of a CRT in that regard.
Quote:
Back to my W900 that goes beyond 1080p so theirs no reason that HD-CRT TV's could be marketed.

Did you mean to say this, really, or are you just trolling us Andy Kaufman style?
Quote:
We just need a company to make them...

They are still made in China, for what is termed "emerging markets." The trouble is, nobody wants to bring them here to sell because they know what a loser the business model will be. Still, if you want to try, here you go.
post #191 of 250
Oh I get it now (flat/thin); now that I think about it that is a pretty skinny CRT in that pic, although it was a flat tube too.

This reminds me of how many people call panel TVs 'flat' TVs as if 'flat' doesn't include any CRTs.
post #192 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post

Nothing attractive about CRT's. Panasonic 42" 102x768 HD ready set, £350 with 5 years warranty

1) Larger screen
2) No convergence, geometry or focus issues
3) HDMI switching so for source switching you have zero picture degradation (HDMI switcher or AV amp if needed)
4) Thinner
5) Built in media system, view pictures, videos, play music, radio from the TV
6) USB support, use a USB hard drive or flash disc as storage
7) PAL broadcasts look good, only slight rescale to 720p.
8) Can be wall mounted, and intrudes far less into the room that a much smaller CRT, so you can get away with a larger screen.
9) Look fantastic from a computer, far better than any CRT I've seen, as dealing with digital video signal, higher resolution, and resolution set to exactly to that. CRT TV- unless you went for a high end set, stuck with S-Video which generally looked fuzzy, and worse if you went though an amp or s-video switcher, or your source wasn't that great. Even with a budget HDMI source if looks perfect, and can use cheap HDMI cables.

It's quite a basic TV compared to others, no network features.

I cannot think of one major positive on CRT. Better blacks, but correctly setup the plasma offers near black levels, and the other positive things totally outshine CRT.

So you don't think a modern CRT would have about half of those features? Sounds like stuff one would get with a smart blu-ray player, etc. Unfair comparison IMO but what did I expect? rolleyes.gif 4 = 8 too.
post #193 of 250
@ Floydage

There is no such thing as modern CRT in US consumer market with Sony FD trinitron technology dating back to 1998-1999 would one call a 1999 automobile modern? it's cool that you kike your CRT set I liked my FD HD Trinitron when I had it but right now I prefer the HD 55" Plasma and the 32" Toshiba HD LCD/LED . More power to you if ur happy with your gear nothing wrong with that . that is what is important not what forum posters think It's just a TV dude ! If I had only 480i signal . I would also probably prefer CRT .
Edited by tubetwister - 9/10/13 at 12:35pm
post #194 of 250
"So you don't think a modern CRT "

A modern CRT doesn't exist so it doesn't matter you're dealing with flights of fancy. The only CRT tech I would consider when flat screens were in their infancy was CRT front projection. But are they even made now? I doubt it. I would not consider direct view, nor rear projection now. Although they were huge (CRT front projection) if your plan is a dedicated home cinema you will have space for it, with a drop down motor or in another room to have silence (fans or CRT buzzing) Whether a modern DLP is superior, I don't know. I have set up CRT front projectors and it isn't a 5 minute job. CRT rear projection are a pain in the rear. Optical, electrical focus, then cleaning insides. Geometry, convergence, and also colour banding and colour shift (vertical/horizontal plane) The size of the units, although they were pretty slim, you had the large projector in the base, so you lose space below that.

I've had CRT's, direct view and rear projection, a few LCD TV's, a and a couple of Plasma TV's.

The last generation direct views offered very little. I gave them a try, at best the last 100hz motion processors, which I found rubbish. First gen LCD's weren't great but I hung onto the 28" Panasonic CRT until LG brought out a 1366x768 LCD set, and then another couple of LCD's then finally Pioneer plasma. Checked the last generation Toshiba set, and that apparently had the best 100hz processing. It was awful. it also had terrible geometry. For 36" TV in a UK sized home it eats up a huge amount of space. A 60" TV is thinner than a 14" portable. Even my Pioneer plasma is considered thick to modern sets. I can get away with a 50" TV, the 28" took more depth up.

CRT rely on optics so could they produce a gun which can direct electrons at 178', then have perfect geometry and convergence in the corners?

So no I would not care if CRT ever came back, modern plasma sets have superseded the best CRT had to offer.

As I said a budget £350 plasma offers more, for less. Rose tinted glasses. It's like looking back at cassette tapes wishing they come back. You get more from mp3 players. Lossless quality, HD if you want (192khz)
post #195 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

If I had only 480i signal . I would also probably prefer CRT .

The real problem is that a good 80+ years of television is still entirely interlaced, and at 480 to boot. It is impossible to display an interlaced broadcast in the manner that it was designed to be shown on a progressive scan television. This is why all of that television looks nice on a CRT, and fuzzy even when "upscaled" to a newer panel television's resolution. Even 1080i is not as desirable for newer televisions with 1080p native resolutions. And the native resolution that these carry is another issue. Seriously, you seem to understand all of this stuff, why come here and pick bones at all with people who still use and see the value of their CRT?

fatbottom, I think I know what your entire problem is.
Quote:
The last generation direct views offered very little. I gave them a try, at best the last 100hz motion processors, which I found rubbish.

You are in PAL territory. PAL as a general rule is ****, so, there you go. "100Hz" was a flub that is even worse than standard PAL.
post #196 of 250
My improper comparison point remains the same, ya'll are just trying to twist it around to look as bad as possible. Why didn't you throw in wi-fi? (although maybe implied). I can utilize some of those features on my CRT with a modern blu-ray player, media box, AVR, etc.

I believe the last Sony CRT was around 2007 (KD-34XBR970). And duh, no, I'm not claiming there's a modern CRT (c'mon guys - what's the title of this thread?), rather that if they made them for 'here' today they would have those features.

Stay on relative comparison points.
post #197 of 250
I still use a 27" Sony CRT for SD in one of our rooms...fits the space well...looks great for 4:3 SD...no going anywhere. It has a SVHS player.

That said I'm putting a Panasonic 65" ZT in my media room for movies in 7.2.
post #198 of 250
PAL has superior colour and higher resolution. 480i versus 576i.

NTSC stands for Never Twice The Same Colour.
post #199 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post

NTSC stands for Never Twice The Same Colour.

Haha! Interesting history - says they didn't anticipate color when it was designed for B&W.

Also ran across PAL - Pay for Additional Luxury. biggrin.gif Sounds like it was worth it though but I'm no expert on the subject.

Mmmm, lard. lol
post #200 of 250
I would only step up to a Pioneer Elite plasma model from my Sony XBR CRT HDTV. It would be interesting to note that if anyone (globally) is still producing a CRT?
post #201 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by JA Fant View Post

I would only step up to a Pioneer Elite plasma model from my Sony XBR CRT HDTV. It would be interesting to note that if anyone (globally) is still producing a CRT?

Yes, see LiquidSnake's "here you go" hyperlink at the end of post #190 above.
post #202 of 250
slim type CRT's are terrible as the deflection angle causes major distortions towards the edge and serious white field uniformity issues. Also, these types of CRT's always use variable pitch shadow mask that also causes issues at edges. Bottom line. All consumer and most professional CRT's are greatly inferior to any decent modern plama/LCD-whatever.

True broadcast 20"-29" CRT's (with much smaller visible area) are still valid. These monitors cost 20-50k. They also have very low light output and are 2-3' feet deep.

Anyone that still thinks that CRT's are superior to the modern digital panel is crazy unless they have to have original 480i or special native resolution (like 15khz arcade games)

For the record I own many CRT's (50+)

For consumer CRT's you can't import them anymore legally. This is due to lead and mercury import environmental laws that went into affect a few years ago. In special cases you can for military and commercial CRT's but this is few and far between.
post #203 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusc View Post

slim type CRT's are terrible as the deflection angle causes major distortions towards the edge and serious white field uniformity issues.

Deflection is the enemy of any CRT's proper geometry, however, this has been defeated decades ago with the standard 4:3 ratio. The introduction of 16:9 wide screens again cause the issue of geometry errors, prone from bad deflection, which is typically made worse with thinner tube depths. There are, however, several non-slim widescreen tubes that have proper geometry. Of course, as with any CRT, this can still be wacked out over time, use, and absolutely with abuse. It's just a caveat that anybody still using the technology has to deal with. Avoid widescreen, avoid slim, or avoid the two of them together if it bothers you enough and you'll be as reasonably well as can be expected.
Quote:
Also, these types of CRT's always use variable pitch shadow mask that also causes issues at edges.

This is another side-effect of extreme deflection and thin depth tubes. It is just impossible to have a pixel the same size at an extreme horizontal end when the beam starts so close to the front of the tube.
Quote:
Bottom line. All consumer and most professional CRT's are greatly inferior to any decent modern plama/LCD-whatever.

For potential geometry issues? Absolutely. Is anybody saying otherwise? I don't think so.
Quote:
True broadcast 20"-29" CRT's (with much smaller visible area) are still valid. These monitors cost 20-50k. They also have very low light output and are 2-3' feet deep.

I think you would have a tough time selling those for even a fraction of 20k, nice as they are.
Quote:
Anyone that still thinks that CRT's are superior to the modern digital panel is crazy unless they have to have original 480i or special native resolution (like 15khz arcade games)

You don't have to be crazy to think a CRT is "superior to the modern digital panel." You just have to have a clear notion of what you prefer. Colour accuracy, gamma, white level--and yes, proper resolution supports like 480i, or any interlacing really, means exactly that. If you need that to have the proper image that you want to view for whatever purpose, you need a CRT. Just because a tube is prone to geometry problems does not mean it will be prone to geometry problems if the user in question does not have his head up his rear end. A well-cared for tube can be calibrated properly, last and work perfectly for an application years at a time. If you need an absolute larger screen, if you need to wall mount, if you need easy portability, if you need low power, particular connections, higher resolution progressive scan, absolute lack of EMI, easily, a "flat panel" can be "superior." Just be clear as to what is superior for your purpose. A lot of these things are not such handicaps for certain CRT use, and can be worked around. And why would you do that? Well...
Quote:
For the record I own many CRT's (50+)

If you own that many CRTs then I can only hazard a guess that you have a specific purpose for them, one which they work properly for.
Quote:
For consumer CRT's you can't import them anymore legally. This is due to lead and mercury import environmental laws that went into affect a few years ago. In special cases you can for military and commercial CRT's but this is few and far between.

Importing a CRT just to use yourself should not be a problem. Importing a CRT such as the ones from the factory suppliers I listed, and then trying to sell them, is a much more dicey proposition in the USA, for the reasons you just mentioned. Good luck getting any kind of efficiency rating or safe environmental disposal ROHS qualification on a Chinese-made tube designed for third world markets, they just don't flipping care, and I doubt they will be assed to retool their production just to satisfy American standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post

PAL has superior colour

Says who? And what's superior about it? The lack of a tint control?
Quote:
and higher resolution. 480i versus 576i.

When the resolution is interlaced the numerical comparison you are trying to make is largely meaningless, and given that interlacing, the 50Hz is utter crap for a stable, pleasing picture.
Quote:
NTSC stands for Never Twice The Same Colour.

Yes, when the vacuum tubes of your NTSC tube television screw up your colour and you can't use anything newer than S-Video, you sure do wish that you had a nice PAL TV from 1955... ? This is the most retarded outdated complaint imaginable. At any rate, I would rather deal with a tint control than stupidly varying speed rates of video and film that confuse broadcasters across the planet, let alone on your little island.
post #204 of 250
You lost at "non widescreen" why would you consider a 4:3 set nowadays? They've gone the way of the dodo. Also regarding frame rate, well unless your TV supports 24hz, or a multiple thereof, you will get either 3:2 pulldown or interpolation. Only solution is natively shot in 50hz for PAL TV's, and 60hz for NTSC TV's.

I agree with 50hz flicker causes eye strain. Also for consoles, the imports were better as they ran at 60fps/60hz. As for PAL & NTSC colour, I think user level, PAL offered better colour balance. Doesn't it have higher video bandwidth?

Poor 3:2 conversation is another factor. Or if you want PAL material on NTSC sets conversion process (at least UK sets support Japanese and American NTSC systems, but American sets do not support PAL)

As for PAL & NTSC resolution the differences are noticeable, I imported region 1 DVD's and whenever I tried the region 2 version the improvement was noticeable. Also when using S-video and comparing 480i and 576i, especially from a computer. 90 lines of resolution is high percentage of the resolution. Not exactly comparing 1000 versus 1100

Interlaced artefacts are quite distracting, for example tweed jackets, and stadium stands. Jaggies, as well. Because NTSC is lower resolution these are more noticeable. Try playing 1080i, interlaced artefacts are still there, but because of the higher resolution you no longer see jaggies.
post #205 of 250
liquidsnake - I agree on all points. I was keeping it basic so everyone understands. I love CRT's but when people blindly defend them with incorrect facts for whatever reason it bothers me.

I did not mean I would pay 20k but new high end broadcast monitors do cost this much or more.

Also, it is interesting to know that some of the best widescreen broadcast monitors are actually 4:3 with masking the top and bottom. "barco as one example" The most perfect CRT possible would be round similar to the original CRT sets. Widescreen by its ratio will always be a compromise.

to clarify on size it has been reported since the 1970's that the optimal size is only around 20" for maximum performance for critical viewing. 29" is the largest normally accepted for critical viewing or proofing.

I do own a few of the 30k monitors. They are great and offer EM focus and other very rare features but still overall I think they have been bested in most respects with even common sets from best buy if you calibrate them.

NTSC vs. PAL for color - who cares - both have serious flaws, even if PAL had better color the non video speed up is much more concerning.

Anyone that want detailed reasons about any NTSC or CRT everything look for articles by Joe Kane (many of which are in Widescreen Review) from the 1990's and early 2000's.
post #206 of 250
Quote:
That is a flat CRT. Somehow you are confusing the word
Quote:
reread everything I said about "flat" CRTs with the realization of what flat means, I am not referring to the thinness of a CRT in that regard.
That was entirely down to my unrevised posting, sorry about that.
Im well aware of the difference between flatness and thinness in CRT's
Well lets face it that:

Is most definatly a lot thinner than that:
Quote:
Okay just how long have you been speaking English
Again apologies for my terrible English in that last post, I was half asleep and literacy was never my strong point.
Quote:
Did you mean to say this, really, or are you just trolling us Andy Kaufman style?
I assure you (well "WAY" beyond my have been a slight exaggeration) but I have easily got mine up to 2048x1536
And if there's anything my old compaq 1280x1024 monitor taught me its that it can go ever higher!
I would like to go to 2560×1600 to fit the 16:10 screen but CCC wont let me :P
Im using the FW900 driver however, as im told its better for higher resolutions.


All im gonna say is I got my W900 for a tenner!
If you prefer LCD or plasma it doesn't matter!
If you can find me a second hand LCD/Plasma 24"
2048x1536 monitor for a tenner I will be blown away!!!
post #207 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusc View Post

slim type CRT's are terrible as the deflection angle causes major distortions towards the edge and serious white field uniformity issues. Also, these types of CRT's always use variable pitch shadow mask that also causes issues at edges. Bottom line. All consumer and most professional CRT's are greatly inferior to any decent modern plama/LCD-whatever.

That was too "basic" a conclusion ("Bottom line") based on the preceding sentences/subject matter (slim type) but I'm glad ya'll cleared that up. smile.gif

_____________

Jaggies suck on gridlines during my NFL viewing but hardly noticeable anymore after getting an HD tuner for my HD CRT. Weird is that it's worse on FOX, maybe because the local here is 720p vs. 1080i for the other NFL broadcasters here (although converted to 480i and 1080i, converter box and HD tuner resp.).

_____________

Oh yeah, all of my CRTs and computer monitors were freeeeeeee. A flat widescreen 34" HD, a 27" HD (with built-in HD tuner), a nice 20" Sony, a little kitchen TV with buit-in VCR that actually works (oh boy!), and bringing up the rear a few 19" 'spares' (only one left - gave the rest away to charities). Also some nice computer monitors including this Dell flat pro CAD I'm staring at.
post #208 of 250
I own a built in May 2006 Toshiba 16:9 HD CRT. Samsung also built HD CRTs until sometime in 2008. Those are the newest I know of that were sold in the USA for the consumer market.
post #209 of 250
me too, I would happily pay double the original retail price for a new CRT. I'm sure I am not the only one. 8M
post #210 of 250
You CRT guys crack me up. Thanks for the laughs.

PS I still own and use a 34inch HDCRT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › Please Bring back CRT TV's Into the Production line Again!