Please Bring back CRT TV's Into the Production line Again! - Page 3

Of course only going up to about 34" (16:9) helps!

Most points well taken but I like perfect geometry, never was into curving doors and such. Now if the screen is huge I guess I could see your point as far as peripheral vision is concerned. But most folks are trying to replicate the theater experience even if it means straining their necks.

The reflection on my friend's LED is just unbearable. I don't know if this is normal for the flat panels as all I have are CRTs, their's is an LG.

I have a crt projector which I run at 720p on a 100" wide screen...it's plenty of resolution....totally overrated pic requirement. Lower resolution and smaller pixel gaps would make for better pictures than what we are seeing in the fixed pixel world at present.

I'm sure it's been established by now, but I think there's pretty much zero chance of CRTs coming back into reproduction. Even if they're better in performance than flat panels, they are more costly to make, are less "stylish" than flat panels, and the average buyer would rather take home a light flat panel than lug a 100-200lb CRT. If CRTs came back, the only people who would buy them are, well, us, the AVS-type people who actually understand and notice the benefits of CRT that the general public doesn't care about.

I think I'm going to have to disagree. 720 lines on a 100'' will be 2mm thick. That's pretty terrible by modern standards. And that's before we even consider the fact that CRT resolution is inherently worse because of the spread of the beam. Simply put those 720 CRT lines won't be able to show the same high-frequency contrast as a 720p LCD Monitor.

Of course, just how much you end up seeing depends on a lot on you own visual acuity, but "being enough" is a very malleable term. If you say 720p is enough you might as well say 480p is enough too. But the fact of the matter is that people are aiming for cinema-quality experience and modern screen resolutions have only just begun to do the picture quality of some 50-year-old films justice.

Obviously the CRT guys have forgotten what its like to schlep around the 36 inch Sony, that has to handgrips.

Obviously you don't realize we actually have these televisions in our homes. If anybody has forgotten anything about these televisions, it's folks like yourself who do not own them or likely haven't seen them for some number of years. There are threads here just griping about how heavy they are, you really think someone who owns one does not know first hand how tough it is to move them?

This discussion will continue for a very long time.I have two CRT televisions a Sony Kv24fs120 and a Rca 29".They both display extremely good picture quality,and I would not change these
for any flat panel .I repair televisions and I have discovered that these flat panels are expensive to repair and they are not as durable as the crt television.

Right On! I love my Sony XBR CRT. Only, I mean only, the 1st generation Pioneer Elite plasma tv can compete.

I think that some individuals simply wanted to make a lot of money by patenting their inventions of plasma TVs, LCDs, LEDs, and what have you, and now we need to be buying that nonsense. I think that the introduction first of plasma in the 1990s was simply a mistake, and later LCD and also LED were bigger mistakes and real disappointments for the people who bought them. I don't see what would be wrong with scrapping all those "innovations" and simply returning to CRT (tube type) TVs simply. But, of course, some people want to sell their patents. I think if consumers stop buying their "innovations" it would do them good. CRT was a good thing and I do not know why you need to change it, simply put. Next thing they will come up with some other nonsensical thing.

And I would say that if someone put even one of the oldest color televisions from the 1950s next to those new display technologies and compared the pictures and he said that the standard definition TV from the 1950s has a better picture one would say that that is the biggest stupidity one has seen in one's entire life.

Edit: I would add that the black levels still suffer on plasmas and LCD-LEDs compared to the perfect blacks of CRTs, as is well known, and another thing is that the bit rate (the number of millions or billions of different shades of colors that a TV can produce) of plasmas and LCD-LEDs will never be the same as that of CRTs-6 and 8 bits of LCDs and LEDs and 10 bits of plasmas compared with about 34 bits of tube-type CRTs, a big difference. As I said, some people wanted to sell their patents of those new display types and developing those new display types was a mistake very simply.

Second edit: Sorry, I meant to say bit depth, not bit rate. It is also called color depth. But the essence of what I said is right.
Edited by basil lambri - 1/1/13 at 8:32am

Agreed basil,

it would be interesting to know, if the raw materials that make up a tv picture tube, could be manufactured again?

I think it would cost those TV manufacturers a lot of money at this point to change their assembly lines and everything to start making tube-type CRT TVs again and that is the reason they don't do that simply. HD CRT TVs would be great and if they would make them 3D they would be great.

Oh please. People wanted the movie theater experience of a big wide screen. Plus much lighter (can mount on wall - again movie theater), less expensive, and more efficient per diagonal measure. Then there's 1080p.

Look, its an obvious example of free-market economy: At a given price point, 95% of Americans will take the TV thats a little bigger & lighter (ie flat-panel) , even though certain positive aspects of the CRT will never be equaled by the flat panels. But if you are sitting 12 feet away from a 55 inch flat panel tv, and watching a sporting event for example, no one in their right mind would say "please give me a 40 inch 4:3 aspect SONY XBR Trinitron tv that weighs 300 lbs and needs an 80 lb solid oak tv stand to hold it up instead". That tv was so big that it had its own gravitational pull, like the moon!
All that being said, I am personally a CRT fan and cannot believe how bad most lcds look 'off angle' just for starters. That was never a problem with the crt. Also no one has mentioned just how terrible tv sound has gotten since the advent of the flat-panel: larger tube tvs and rear-projection hdtvs like sony & hitachi circa 2000-2005 came out-of-the-box with true room-filling sound at 60% of max volume. Flat-panel tv lovers: please please please dont tell me that I need to turn on my $1200 surround sound system in order to watch the 10 oclock news with decent sound, because its not going to happen.

Indeed, my Panny 34" widescreen HD CRT sound amazes me. There's just no room in flat panels for decent audio physics. Of course they're working on better thin-cell speaker technology but I don't know if they can achieve good bass, fill, and projection (horn) without waveguide physics. And electrostatic requires power which kills efficiency. Looks like a lot of entertainment center money shifted to the audio side.

I wouldn't say a little bigger unless you're referring to when flat panels first came out. Many folks have gotten infatuated with size. My friend has an ~55" which is about right for their modest townhome living room but wants to blow a big chunk of money on a Sharp 80" (wants Quattron color AND big). I told him it won't look worth a crap that close but...

Agreed Floydage!

Here's a 29" CRT you can order, minimum order is 250 units.

Hehehe! So someone's still geared up, I suspect for third-world countries, etc. I wonder who makes the tubes?
_________________________

Chris, if you keep having those dreams you may have to seek professional help.

I used to be a CRT fan back in the day. The first couple gens of LCDs sucked royally, they were blurry, the color was dull, blacks were grey, viewing angles were bad and they were very expensive. IMO today the improvements have been dramatic and these issues resolved, and all but the most budget LCD's can out perform any CRT. I think some of the posters on here slamming LCD and plasma have never seen the modern sets perform at their potential.

CRT geometry can never be as accurate, and over time the earth's magnetic field, built in speakers and other things cause the picture to go wonky and discolored in certain spots and not others. They are heavier than tanks, have 0 resale value, and have their own issues with even lighting. (Edit: Halation).

I know a lot of guys have cut their teeth on this tech and remember it fondly, but it's like comparing fuel injection to carburetor tech. There is just no question as to what the superior tech is, virtually nobody makes CRTs and nobody makes new cars with carbs for a reason.




Now excuse me while I put on my fire-proof suit.
Edited by DarkVenture - 1/9/13 at 5:37pm

I have nothing but CRT in my place. My monitor is a Sony fw900 and my TV is a Sony 30 inch xbr910 with the super fine pitch tube. Picked them both off craigslist several years ago for around 2 hundred bucks each. The TV even came with the stand. They both make for a great displays and as long as they keep working I will not replace them. But eventually I will have to "upgrade" to something more modern because electronic equipment doesn't last forever. These displays represent the pinnacle of CRT tech and the picture quality shows it. The only time I view LCD is in a public place like airports or bars, or the show room floor at Fry's or Best Buy. I haven't seen anything yet that makes me want to rush out and adopt flat panel screens. I am hoping that when the time comes for me to make the switch there will be something out there that won't leave me feeling like I am making big compromises.

It's really a stretch to say that most LCDs outperform CRT. Fact of the matter is, it is impossible to block all light from coming through. Liquid crystals can only block so much light. Have they improved? Absolutely.

I can still detect motion blur on current LCD models, whether 60 Hz, 120 Hz, or 240 Hz.

The geometry, yes that's a killer. Fortunately most decent monitors and higher-end TVs can correct that with adjustments.


Well, it's a lot easier to maintain a consistent fuel-air ratio / stoichiometry with fuel injection. It's also a lot more difficult to adjust it. Emissions laws helped drive that one. But most small engines are not fuel-injected. I don't know of any gasoline-powered lawn mower, pressure washer, leaf blower, etc. that is not carbureted. Serviceability, simplicity, and cost-effectiveness.

The problem at hand, and I ask this from rhetorical standpoint, is the failure of modern technology to meed the needs of true video enthusiasts. What I mean by this is that std def footage (say 480i) or so shot on 8mm or camcorders, even good 3ccd camcorders, in essence , played back on high def tv, looks like ****. Even with upscaling , uploaders, the results essentially a joke. Playing back the same media on a crt tv, it looks pristine. Yes one can watch it on a computer screen and scale the picture, but that is annoying. It is a true shame, and perhaps one out there with much better knowledge/wisdom has some pearls so as to improve this problem?

thanks!

Yes "pristine" 480i content In all of its blocky glory, i certianly wouldn't want to miss any of those super fine detailed lines

I do believe standard def plasmas existed for a while if that is the characteristic you want to hold onto, otherwise i see alot of other benefits to owning a crt for images with visible fine detail however softened details may be.

A proper hardware scaler is the answer to your problem if your after quality and convenience, most modern video cards have half decent scalers in them and many crt owners buy expensive hardware scalers specifically for that purpose.

The only thing CRTs do that LCDs, LEDs, and Plasmas don't is the Light Gun games. They don't physically work on anything but a CRT. The CRT draws a picture one dot at a time, whereas the other technologies draw it one frame at a time and the gun senses when within a frame down to the microsecond or faster it senses light. If a newer technology can draw a picture in 480i 4x3 mode one pixel at a time in "Light Gun Mode" (able to be turned on or off), had 1080p or better resolution 120Hz/frame (as opposed to a per dot rate of over a million dots per second on CRT) and 3D, and was 18-25 inches and was under $300, and had both old and new hookups from analog TV for the 2600 to HDMI or now, I'd buy it. A PS3DTV had everything except light gun mode and older hookups and went or $180.

Unless it's for light gun games, what other advantage is here to CRT?

The again reading further you're only talking about the aestetic value or a CRT TV. It seems that CRT has more possible colors in the pallate. 10 bit is 1024 different levels. Adding 1 bit doubles the colors. 10 tmes 3 colors make 30 bits. making a billion colors in the palate. Should I assume CRT TV's have the analog equivalent of 34 bits per primary color making about a 1 nonillion color palate (1 followed by 27 zeroes)

Okay, here we go, can of worms time
I'm currently running a rear projection crt so some of the benefits may not be as applicable to direct views.

Pro's
Near perfect black level with no dithering
Pixel spacing (probably not as applicable for direct view)
Free antialiasing (reduction of stair step affect due to rounded vs square pixels)
Very little input lag when properly set up with analog signals (mine currently isn't )
Fast pixel response
Refresh rate contributes to excellent motion performance as well.
Multisync resolution capability (The best crt's hit 1080p and possibly beyond)
Minimal phosphor lag
Viewing angle

Cons
Geometry/Convergence
Static contrast
Shadow detail (can be compensated for with specific gamma related equipment)
Peak brightness
Flicker (high end crt projectors don't have as much of an issue with that because they allow higher refresh rates)
Resolution is usually lower.
size (some nice crt front projectors out there though)
Weight
Support of modern inputs.
Viewing angle (rear pro, though my 2002 exceeded my expectations by a fair margin)

I'm not to sure about color quality as each display tech has a different way of going about it... but i certianly don't have a crt so i can play my retro light gun games emulators and modern peripherals would have me covered if i was up for a game of Duck Hunt

Plasmas have literally unrestricted viewing angles (just like CRT), amazing black levels & overall picture quality, Forget LCD!

a buddy of mine recently bought a 64" PN64E533 Samsung plasma for under $1200 and the PQ is pretty outstanding. (They sit around 10-11 ft from it)

I personally have an XBR960N CRT & 5080 Kuro plasma for reference.

I agree sound quality can be an issue with most newer flat panels, they tend to have "hollow" sound with little to no bass reinforcement (luckily Pioneer supplied a good sounding speaker bar for the Kuro's)

But is sound enough reason to not go with a flatpanel? Especially if you're seating distance would benefit from a larger TV... Perhaps buy a home theater in a box configuration (Onkyo is good, for example) and connect the TV to that.

IMO more people should consider Plasma especially when transitioning from a CRT.
Edited by Mathesar - 2/24/13 at 10:49am

Hi, i have a Loewe Aventos 32 ; it has not great convergency and suffers from overscan in 16:9 mode, but i dunno why Skin tones are always much more natural in CRT compared to Flat panels....whites and light flashes are also pure and more powerful
due to electron cannon

Is there still any shop selling brand new Trinitron wega tubes in the USA shipping to Europe ?

I totally agree with the original poster, and many in this thread. someone DOES need to still manufacture and sell CRT's.. not for big box store consumption, but for a niche market, much like the vinyl turntable market today. You can't waltz into Best Buy or Target (Or God forbid, Walmart) and buy a brand new record player, but they can be HAD. I know that there is a difference in that there is exclusive content only on vinyl, considering only about 40 percent of LP's released prior to 1980 has seen a CD release. But I think a niche market would exist, especially for gamers. Doesn't anyone get sick of the delicate nature of flat panels? A child can accidentally run their fingernail across the screen pointing at something, and make a permanent scratch. Plastic doesn't have the optical clarity of glass, that's why you'll never see a camera or telescope of any kind with a plastic lens. And flat panels are light... SO WHAT, it also makes them incredibly easy to steal. There is a huge rash of "smash and grab" robberies in all the major cities, the perps break in, snatch the flat panel, and get out before the cops can arrive. Very lucrative for THEM. Love to see them do that with a CRT. The weight is fine if you consider it a piece of furniture! But then, today, thee has been this ridiculous movement to matieral that require much more maintinence and is frankly, a pain in the ass to deal with. I have many clients whose plat panels are scratched all to hell from cleaning ladies using glass cleaner and paper towels on them. People seem to all want granite countertops because ti's the rage, never mind that you have to seal them, and if you set a glass down too hard, it's gone. And since when did people want to prepare their meals on someone's gravestone. Granite belongs in the cemetary. Fixtures moving away from chrome to nickel, which TARNISHES, people acting like polyester is the devil, and buying stuff you have to constantly IRON. What happened to ease of care in our modern products?

If they can make CRTs without the flicker, then Im all for it. My eyes are all screwed up till this day because of CRTs. LCDs are very nice on the eyes. Besides OLED is going to rule all displays someday, and beat out CRT in terms of brightness, contrast, sharpness, etc..