betcha never seen a CRT vs LCD comparison like this! - Page 2  

Clarence,

With all due respect, you might want to simply adjust the LCD picture to make it less greenish. Just a suggestion. :D

p.s. see, that wasn't hard, was it. :D

Bob

I've never said CRT isn't a great value, especially when you can find them at the junkyard.

But seriously, used CRT often is an excellent value - if it's the right fit for the purchaser.

QQQ i must admit you have a way with words, you can dish it out as well as take it like a man with no quarter given or asked for, a true warrior ......


p.s. didn,t know that refugees from the junk yard could throw such a great picture............

I'm usually just having some fun pentiction102 but people sometimes take it more seriously than it deserves...of course I sometimes do the same thing (with regard to some discussions on the forum) :).

Sarcasm of some of the members aside,i still feel this is a good comparison to TRY and show the two technologies side by side.

I dont know what Pablo means with his Porche analogy-a better analogy would be restore a DB6 vintage Aston Martin and pitch it against a BMW 3.0.-If your talking about an older Marquee against a top dlp.

Dont matter how old an Astom Martin is its still an Aston-could have had a similar analogy using the Phantom 5 ......;)

...its all to do with his panic...

It's not the same currently available price level. NOT even close! I believe a CRT owner just posted here the other day confirming that a new 8000 in good condition runs around $3500. The used Epson would run MUCH less. You could buy a NEW NEC HT1000 (the projector Bob Wood owns) for about the same price that is in a different performance stratosphere.
Yes, if you wanted to compare the best to the best that would be a completely valid comparison. I would submit that the greatest accomplishment of digital so far (apart from its obvious advatnages of small size etc.) is that it has drastically raised the performance bar at lower price points, and at all performance levels apart from state of the art. A person can now buy a NEW digital projector for less than 1K that can throw a picture that is satsifying for many people. A NEW CRT could never have been purchased for that price. For 4K you can buy a NEW digital projector that no CRT at 4K could ever remotely approach. Same for a NEW digital projector at 6K, which would have cost a MINIMUM of 12K in a NEW CRT.

When the Sony 1031 was released it retailed for about $10,000.

Its tubes lasted(..at least..)10,000hrs.

Thats $1 per hour of use.

Digital is a false economy-because (1) the $1000 digital will last 1000hrs-thats $1 per hour same as crt.

NOW to get the same use over the same period-you would need to buy another 9 bulbs for the digital-thats about $4,000.

Now the digital over the same period costs $5,000 .

(2) The picture quality of the Sony 1031 would beat into oblivion ANY $1,000 digital today.

(3) Now today,you can buy a Sony 1031 for $500-that works out at 0.5 cents per hour-as opposed to $1 per hour for the crappy digital-and you get a better picture.

Digital has not raised the performance bar-for a picture performance to mix it with even the 1031 you need to spend 4/5k-and the real decent dlp`s are 10k-and they cant out perform a Marquee 8000 that can be had for $1,000.

Digital has LOWERED the standard of picture quality-it is not cheaper -not really-the picture is not better and they dont last as long...

This really isn't a valid comparison - I have seen quite a few LCD's and none of them had the colour this far off..

The screendoor is something I can always see, even at the seating position, but the colours generally look good..

Not an LCD, but I helped a local X1 owner calibrate his PJ and after we were done the colours looked very close to CRT - there was no push of any of the three colours..

I was also surprised that the X1 when using the "film" mode didn't look any brighter than my CRT..other than the annoying rainbows, it was a very respectable image considering it's $1k pricetag..

Clarence,

I don't follow the used CRT market but I assume it depends on how you want to determine average price and especially wear on the tubes etc. My guess is that a unit in really good condition would be closer to the price I gave. But either way, no doubt there are some great deals to be had out there.

Ah, the CRT self-rationalization thread of the week :)

How about making a comparison where the digital isn't set up by a CRT guy who didn't make the slightest attempt to adjust the digital so it looked decent. That said, other than the improper color setup on the lcd, the only screenshot that looks that much better is the screendoor one, and there are LCDs that don't have a problem with that anymore.

Digital hasn't caught CRT yet, but its getting damn close, and a comparison like this one is basically useless.

- Cryo

After comparing the JPEGs posted, Other than the ovbious green push, I think LCD image is sharper and more 3D! The Whites on the CRT image appears to be blooming.
On the other hand the. the colors and detail are also different in the theater room of the two images

I have no idea. I wouldn't own An Epson LCD projector. But any video projector (no matter whether it uses bulbs, tubes, candles or whatnot) and makes a green picture like that which cannot be corrected by adjusting color, is a piece of s**t.
And it in no way, shape or form is representative of the picture available now with digital projectors made for home theater (particularly DLP).

This is what modern DLP looks like. Take this screenshot and make it a gif and subtitute it for the POS picture if you want to make a real comparison between old and new technology.

http://bucklemke.com/images/screen/newCam/P1000016.jpg

I don't know what CRT Guy Kuo has, but I'm hoping to do a comparison with my 11k soon. IMO, the CRT had better look better than the 11k. I might be able to get $5500 for the 11k right now and it has many convenience advantages over a CRT (lens-shift, no color shifting with the High Power, portability, touch of a button lumens range changes, ease of sale, etc.). So, as I see it if these CRTs didn't put out better images to at least some people's eyes why would anybody want one unless they were only doing it to save money. And I doubt most G90 and 9500LC buyers bought them to save a little bit of money. More and more that is the case, but I doubt it is the case right now.
What projector are you talking about here. The only $1k digital I know of that fits is the X1 and the evidence is that their bulbs last much longer than 1000 hours and cost much less than $400.

InFocus is claiming 3000 hours, so lets assume that they are exaggerating the real number by 50% (I have not seen evidence of InFocus exaggerating, but I'll give you that much for your comparison). Also, I believe they changed their firmware and have now started claiming 4000 hours, but I'll go with 2000 for this. And the first place I checked had the bulbs for $299, but they can be found for less. I'll assume $280 and also that the prices will not fall in the time someone has the projector and I also will leave out the option of upgrading the projector to an X3 along the way.

So, for 10k hours we have $1k for the projector plus $1400 for bulbs by taking realistic numbers (and even leaning them toward being conservative). That is 0.24 cents per hour. A far cry from the $1 per hour you came up with by using unrealistic numbers.

Now, if you are talking about the Sanyo Z1, yes they do seem to have a bulb problem and they don't seem to be lasting. The evidence is that the X1 does not exhibit this problem and there are many people with lots of hours on their X1s.

Also, Panasonic did not seem to have the same bulb problems with the AE300 and I believe that bulbs for the AE500 are about $229.

It isn't out yet, but for those looking for a budget projector to compare there will soon be the InFocus 4805 which will have a 4x wheel and sounds like it will be about $1400. I think it will ship in the next couple to few months, but I haven't heard of a date. Will it beat a used CRT for $1400 in just image quality? It better not or that CRT price will drop like a rock.

--Darin

This I believe is from the Infocus 5700-which is fair-but not in the same league-pic quality wise as the 1272 Im using at the moment.

Having viewed the 5700 extensively a couple of weeks ago -and having watched the Fellowship of the Ring on the 1272 the other night,both pictures are very clear in my head!!

Also this is dlp and dlp does not suffer from the greenish hues that lcd`s can suffer from-the PLV70 was particularly green-even the 12ht leaned towards the green until tweaked extensively in the service menus.

I agree though that the better digitals have improved in leaps and bounds and the top ones are probably 60% of the quality of the top crt`s.(..ignoring the pixels that is..)

Well that's a start anyways. 60% is a lot more than most around here will concede. :D

Darinp,
Your just talking about the X1 -its only recently that lcd`s have increased from 1,000 hours from ANY manufacturer(..and im only talking of lcd here because that was the technology in the comparison..)

The lcd`s that last longer than 1,000 hrs only achieve so by 'bulb saving" modes -or recommending they be changed after 1,000 hrs..

But if you want to take dlp-what about the Sharp? ,,How much would that cost over 10,000 hrs including the price?-10k +?(..and im talking normal average consumer prices-not the price you paid!)

You might be able to find a G90 for 10k?..

You could get a G70 for 5k thats going to work out 50% more cost effective than thew Sharp and have a much better pic.

Oh I sure did read post #12..

Before you started this little value thread, you should have gone to the digital forum and posted that you brought home this Epson LCD..the image looks very green - How do I correct this?

This thread is the equivalent to an LCD owner with a calibrated PJ, taking it to a bar and doing screenshots against a misfocused dull CRT..

There is some good from the thread though..whatever PJ you buy make damn sure it has the ability to control the RGB individually - and also that you can do it on all inputs/sources..

John,
I think thats a little unfair,because the lcd in question has a green hue(..which isnt unusual) it doesnt make the comparison invalid..
I doubt if this model can be tweaked to 6500k-therefore the comparison has to be as is-I agree there are better lcd`s of today that could have served the comparison better-but then so are there better crt`s.

I think we all agree that a real even criteria comparison would be high end crt vs`high end dlp-nevertheless that doesnt make this worthless.

I wonder what kind of monitor most people are viewing the posted screenshots on?

Evidently Clarence is also am arm wrestler. I just found this pic of him doing what he referred to as a "fair comparison of strength" on an arm wrestling forum.

















































http://www.outdoor-pool-tables.com/c..._wrestling.jpg

This comparsion has shown that given the projectors Clarence can lay his hands on readily, the Marquee 8000 throws a perceived brighter image, and with significantly less green hue and screendoor effect. Nothing else. :)

A comparsion of a digital user toting his system to a bar to compare to a misconverged, burnt CRT projector would show that the digital throws a better image, given the projectors readily available to the poor, unknowing digital user.

This is a lot like comparing different computers, e.g. is it better to build a supercomputer from hundreds of Apple Macintosh computers, or from hundreds of Intel based Pentium 4 computers, or from Sun SPARC systems. There's a million different variables, and they do different things well, so they depend heavily on the actual use case. Everyone has their favorites, largely for relgious reasons more than for any technical reason. And everyone tries to build non-biased (but yet still biased due to their own bias) comparisions. And everyone finds fault in every comparsion. Its a battle that cannot be won.

Clearly Clarence has shown that if you had about $2000 or whatever that LCD goes for, and you have the choice between the Marquee 8000 or the LCD, then the Marquee will give you a better picture.

A comparsion of a Marquee 8000 against a $13k DLP isn't really fair to the DLP, as if you spent the remaining $11k that you saved by getting the Marquee say on better sound isolation and management for your theater room, vs. not doing it at all, the Marquee might win overall, despite the DLP actually throwing a brighter image, for less effort. Everything's relative. :D