or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › A Salute To The Humble Direct View Tube TV.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Salute To The Humble Direct View Tube TV. - Page 3  

post #61 of 261
I'll agree that the "best" (and I use that word advisedly) CRTs can beat most other devices black-level-wise. But that's about as much as I'm willing to commit to at this point. :)

The problem isn't so much in transitions between dark and light scenes (although this kind of thing can also be seen, as lingering images after bright scenes on the Sonys), as much as a washing out (or what I call fogging) of blacks when other parts of the screen are brightly lit. Internal reflections or scattering are other the terms I've heard used for this phenomena. See #7 & #13 here.
post #62 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by ADU
Even though I run my own TV at 540p, I wouldn't want to disappoint you by agreeing with you... so let me just say that one thing I think I like (sorry for all this subjectivity :) ) about the interlaced modes is that each field (or 1/60th second scan) contains unique visual information. This is true not only with field-based content, but also frame-based content where the odd lines are displayed in the first field and the even lines are displayed in the second field (when displayed in an interlaced mode), and to some extent in film-based content as well. IMO this can also contribute to that illusive sense of liveness in the picture. Since there's very little true 60 frame/sec (as opposed to fields/sec) content, when you're using progressive modes you're usually seeing the same frames/visual info repeated 2 or 3 times, instead of new information in each pass. So it gives you a different feel that's more solid, but perhaps less "alive". Again, I think it may come down to whether you lean more towards the static or the active in your viewing tastes. The progressive modes are certainly more computerish in feel, but maybe that's not necessarily what you want, especially if the source frame rate is hovering around a mere 24 to 30 fps... maybe.

The main reason I'm using 540p btw is I'm just too lazy to implement 1080i on my HTPC. :D If/when I can find a DVD player with good 1080i up-conversion though, then I'd probably go back to the interlaced mode again for the above reasons (and also because it's less hassle than using a computer).

Thanx for the superhuman compliment btw. :)
I see your point but its only valid if the set can actaully do 1080 vertical lines of resolution.

Lemme explain: 540p puts an entirely new frame(a complete picture or all vertical scan lines) each 1/60th of a sec. 1080i only puts half a frame(a field - odd or even scan lines) every 1/60th of a sec. It puts a full frame every 1/30th of a sec. 540p is always gonna beat 1080i on a device with 500-600 lines of vertical resolution on any content. The ONLY way 1080i is better on ANY content is if the device can do a full 1080 vertical lines, or enough additional vertical resolution to sway it that way. Meaning progressive scanning is better on any level of motion or static image. It refreshes the entire frame more often - its faster - period.

The only way your way is better is if your device allows the resolution improvement of 1080i to be a factor. If you are talking about a direct view CRT, IMO it wont.

ss:)
post #63 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by ADU
I'll agree that the "best" (and I use that word advisedly) CRTs can beat most other devices black-level-wise. But that's about as much as I'm willing to commit to at this point. :)

The Problem isn't so much in transitions between dark and light scenes (although this kind of thing can also be seen, as lingering images after bright scenes on the Sonys), as much as a washing out (or what I call fogging) of blacks when other parts of the screen are brightly lit. Internal reflections or scattering are other the terms I've heard used for this phenomena. See #7 here.
But what you have to understand, is even the best of the other technologies are handicapped by their display techiniques. Its not a fair fight on black level even against a bad CRT.

The absolute bottom range of these other technologies just being powered is grey. I could go into specifics on why on each device but thats a pretty long post.

ss

edit: thats a great link, thanks. Like I said above I havent seen the Sonys in person yet and certainly not calibrated, so I can only speak to what I've read on them. It could be a significant problem you are describing, they are receivng generally rave reviews tho.
post #64 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
All display devices are inherently fixel pixel or maximum pixel devices. Each device including CRTs have a best possible resolution.

And this is a VERY good thing. I am not atll seeing your point as to why it would be a bad thing.

Maybe you could clarify.

A fixed pixel high res device is where you want to be. Then you just adjust your seating distance until just to the point where pixel structure disappears and youve got viewing nirvana.

Fixed resolution is your friend.

ss

and these SEDs like all other display devices trulay are, fixed pixel devices.
Yes of course I know that :). What I meant is that CRT's simply do a nearly perfect job at interpolating an image because it's all done in analog with phosphors and a gun, which allows for very natural, accurate scaling, even on low-res CRT's. Digital displays have to process an image to scale it, and due to the way digital pixels work, this tends to almost always result in poor scaling at best. I wouldn't want to buy a pricey flat tv if it can't even scale resolutions very well...that's taking a pretty big step back in technology and usability imo. Unfortunately I am one who loves to keep old videogames and movies, and the scaling capabilities I've seen from lcd's is simply unacceptable (I imagine most plasmas are no different).

Point is, this day and age I shouldn't have to drop a hunk of cash on a seperate scaling processor that may or may not be good, or hope that I can afford a flat panel that will scale to my liking. And then there's the forced de-interlacing related with digital displays, but that's another issue :) I think fixed digital resolution can be friggin awesome , but only for certain applications that call for it. It's just not ideal for use as a "universal" television/monitor (which scaling would be at the top of the priorities :))
post #65 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
The ONLY way 1080i is better on ANY content is if the device can do a full 1080 vertical lines, or enough additional vertical resolution to sway it that way.
Meaning ~1080p?
Quote:
Meaning progressive scanning is better on any level of motion or static image. It refreshes the entire frame more often - its faster - period.
Again, I say meaning 1080p? :)

IAC, leaving 1080p out of the equation, I still stand by my earlier remarks. If you want a more live-feeling picture, then I think there's something to be said for NOT repeating the same frame/visual info 2 or 3 times as in the progressive modes. I ain't necessarily sayin it's better across the board, but if there is an upside to 1080i, it could be it's predisposition to display different visual info in almost every field. IOW, maybe sometimes what you don't see is as interesting as what you do?

My CRT does exhibit a little overlap in scanlines at 1080i btw, but not too much.
post #66 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
But what you have to understand, is even the best of the other technologies are handicapped by their display techiniques. Its not a fair fight on black level even against a bad CRT.

The absolute bottom range of these other technologies just being powered is grey. I could go into specifics on why on each device but thats a pretty long post.

ss

edit: thats a great link, thanks. Like I said above I havent seen the Sonys in person yet and certainly not calibrated, so I can only speak to what I've read on them. It could be a significant problem you are describing, they are receivng generally rave reviews tho.
The new Sonys are certainly different. Not sure that makes them better though...

IAC, just to kind of rap things up, here's my basic point re black levels. In the best of all possible worlds, yes, deeper is better. But if there are things you can do to level the "depth" playing field with CRTs (like raising the ambient light, if there's adequate brightness/contrast to permit that), then perhaps the other qualitative problems with blacks on many CRTs become more of a liability by comparison. IOW, depth may not necessarily be the only thing to look for in your display's blacks.

Interesting discussion, ss. Thanks for participating.
post #67 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by ADU
Meaning ~1080p?Again, I say meaning 1080p? :)

IAC, leaving 1080p out of the equation, I still stand by my earlier remarks. If you want a more live-feeling picture, then I think there's something to be said for NOT repeating the same frame/visual info 2 or 3 times as in the progressive modes. I ain't necessarily sayin it's better across the board, but if there is an upside to 1080i, it could be it's predisposition to display different visual info in almost every field. IOW, maybe sometimes what you don't see is as interesting as what you do?

My CRT does exhibit a little overlap in scanlines at 1080i btw, but not too much.
No I mean 1080i. A current analog 480i set has 480 seperate vertical lines of resolution and it scans the 240 odd and 240 even. Unfortunately direct view CRT sets that claim to be able to do 1080i dont have 1080 seperate vertical blocks to display 1080i on at 540 odd and 540 even.

I am referring to a situation where say 540p and 1080i are attempting to be scanned on a device with 600 vertical distinct lines of resolution. Not unlike reality actually. IMO in that case 540p wins.

Lets sat there was a set that had 800 lines of vertical resolution and your choices were again 1080i or 540p. In that case the additonal lines that could show parts of 1080i would IMO favor the 1080i choice even though full 1080i rendition is still lacking.

But your argument seemed to be genrally comparing interalced and non-interlaced. Non-interlaced always wins unless they are two different resolution rates and then you need to compare factors as above.

480p>480i
540p>540i
540p might be >1080i depending on circumstances of the display device
1080p>1080i

ss
post #68 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by ADU
People often confuse "different" (or "the same" for that matter) with "better", but that's another topic. IAC, glad you found the link interesting.

Just to kind of rap things up, here's my basic point re blacks levels. In the best of all possible worlds, yes, deeper is better. But if there are things you can do to level the playing field with CRTs, like raising the ambient light (if you have adequate contrast to permit that), then perhaps the other qualitative problems with blacks on some CRTs could become more of a liability by comparison. IOW, depth may not necessarily be the only thing to look for in your display's blacks.

Interesting discussion, ss. Thanks for participating.
Yes definitely.

In ambiant light setting I can see how some of the brighter display devices might perform better. However most direct view sets pull excellent brightness(say 22ft/l after a correct calibration) and still have phenomenal black level. A well engineered plasma would probably trump a crt direct view in high ambiant light however(one of the reasons their lifespen is shorter.)

A DLP projector vs even two stacked CRT projectors in high ambiant light would likely still be a winner for the DLP.

Black level is very important to that punch though in critical low light viewing.

ss
post #69 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by Geise
Yes of course I know that :). What I meant is that CRT's simply do a nearly perfect job at interpolating an image because it's all done in analog with phosphors and a gun, which allows for very natural, accurate scaling, even on low-res CRT's. Digital displays have to process an image to scale it, and due to the way digital pixels work, this tends to almost always result in poor scaling at best. I wouldn't want to buy a pricey flat tv if it can't even scale resolutions very well...that's taking a pretty big step back in technology and usability imo. Unfortunately I am one who loves to keep old videogames and movies, and the scaling capabilities I've seen from lcd's is simply unacceptable (I imagine most plasmas are no different).

Point is, this day and age I shouldn't have to drop a hunk of cash on a seperate scaling processor that may or may not be good, or hope that I can afford a flat panel that will scale to my liking. And then there's the forced de-interlacing related with digital displays, but that's another issue :) I think fixed digital resolution can be friggin awesome , but only for certain applications that call for it. It's just not ideal for use as a "universal" television/monitor (which scaling would be at the top of the priorities :))
I had to look back to see what I said.

ALL display devices are inherently analog, but yes the CRT is very human eye friendly. It support a colr and brightness range and refresh range that works well with the human eye.

The problem is until there is some consensus in broadcast HD, HD-DVDs, etc, a scaler matched to a fixed pixel device is the best approach IMO. Its just the cost of good picture and convenience.

Take a look at this thread by Timwit.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=466519

Tim was looking for a multi-scan setup too, take a look why I think thats a bad idea.

ss
post #70 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Black level is very important to that punch though in critical low light viewing.
Acknowledged. Which is why I wish the blacks on my CRT weren't getting fogged and muddied by scattering and persisting phosphors so much. :D Anyway...
Quote:
No I mean 1080i. A current analog 480i set has 480 seperate vertical lines of resolution and it scans the 240 odd and 240 even. Unfortunately direct view CRT sets that claim to be able to do 1080i dont have 1080 seperate vertical blocks to display 1080i on at 540 odd and 540 even.

I am referring to a situation where say 540p and 1080i are attempting to be scanned on a device with 600 vertical distinct lines of resolution. Not unlike reality actually. IMO in that case 540p wins.

Lets sat there was a set that had 800 lines of vertical resolution and your choices were again 1080i or 540p. In that case the additonal lines that could show parts of 1080i would IMO favor the 1080i choice even though full 1080i rendition is still lacking.

But your argument seemed to be genrally comparing interalced and non-interlaced. Non-interlaced always wins unless they are two different resolution rates and then you need to compare factors as above.

480p>480i
540p>540i
540p might be >1080i depending on circumstances of the display device
1080p>1080i

ss
Your "vertical blocks" point is interesting. I have noticed as you say that the offsetting of fields on many 1080i tubes does tend to fill in the gaps between scanlines more than on 480i tubes. This could be an unavoidable consequence of dual-scanning 480p/1080i CRT design. But just because you can't as easily distinguish the individual lines on most(?) 1080i tubes, that doesn't mean they aren't displaying all 1080 scanlines (albeit at 30Hz interlaced and maybe overlapping a bit more than 480i TVs). It is a different look. But whether it's good or bad could be a matter of opinion.

Sidenote: Not sure where you're gettin the 600 and 800 numbers from, unless you're referring to FPDs or the horizontal resolution of CRTS, ie the number of RGB strips/dot clusters across the screen (?) which AFAIK really has no bearing on the number of scanlines that can be produced.
post #71 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Geise
Digital displays have to process an image to scale it, and due to the way digital pixels work, this tends to almost always result in poor scaling at best. I wouldn't want to buy a pricey flat tv if it can't even scale resolutions very well...that's taking a pretty big step back in technology and usability imo. Unfortunately I am one who loves to keep old videogames and movies, and the scaling capabilities I've seen from lcd's is simply unacceptable (I imagine most plasmas are no different).
I agree with you: I absolutely can't stand poor scaling. If there is one big thingy I'm allergic to it's digital processing - anything that gives that digitized, blocky or smeary look to the image. I will take analog snow and distortions over digital any day, because at least it looks like it's a human being I'm seeing through the poor signal. Whereas poor scaling or compressed digitization of images make it look like I'm watching synthetic humans. Yuch.

When it comes to scaling regular NTSC LCDs are generally just hideous, especially the flat panels.

Luckily I find my Panasonic 42" ED plasma a stellar performer in the scaling department. Analog NTSC channels look, from my seat, pretty much completely analog - in other words the scaling looks "transparent" or invisible - no added digititis to the image. More like a good CRT image but bigger. So in general I prefer watching TV on my plasma over my Panasonic Tau tube set. A good NTSC feed, especially a digital channel without compression artifacts, can give a window-on-the world vibe. The same goes for it's scaling of DVD, which is among the smoothest I have ever seen from any display type, on to Hi-Def which it scales down shockingly well.

So don't give up hope ;)
post #72 of 261
Back to Rick's comment regarding flicker in BBY store, I would say that is an extreme case. Namely, the flourescent lights in those stores (and light from other TVs possibly) beat against the identical refresh rates in the TV, making the slow refresh cycle much more visible (i.e. you get a strobe effect). At home, with different lighting, 60Hz flicker is a non-issue for most people. Now, PAL at 50Hz is a different story.

Amir
post #73 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by ADU
Anyway...Your "vertical blocks" point is interesting. I have noticed as you say that the offsetting of fields on many 1080i tubes does tend to fill in the gaps between scanlines more than on 480i tubes. This could be an unavoidable consequence of dual-scanning 480p/1080i CRT design. But just because you can't as easily distinguish the individual lines on most(?) 1080i tubes, that doesn't mean they aren't displaying all 1080 scanlines (albeit at 30Hz interlaced and maybe overlapping a bit more than 480i TVs). It is a different look. But whether it's good or bad could be a matter of opinion.

Sidenote: Not sure where you're gettin the 600 and 800 numbers from, unless you're referring to FPDs or the horizontal resolution of CRTS, ie the number of RGB strips/dot clusters across the screen (?) which AFAIK really has no bearing on the number of scanlines that can be produced.
The vertical block count point isnt just interesting its the key to most of the discussions we are having.

There are 4 main things that limit resolution on a direct view CRT set.

1. Scan lines that can be produced(easiest to pull off, especially 1080i.)
2. Phosphor triad count (If there isnt a serperate phosphor for each applied pixel, it cant display distinct information.)
3. Shadow mask aperature count (If there isnt a seperate opening for the point in the shadow mask, it cant exist)
4. Beam spot size (If the beam spot is 1mm, thats the finest resolution the set can resolve, usually beam spot size and pitch are virtually identical in large format CRTs.)

ALL four of these have to be satisfied to yield a resolution. The point I have been making is the current crop of CRTs dont satisfy 3 of these 4 points. The only one they do satisfy is line count. Just beacause you have line count doesnt mean the set does that resolution.

Are you seeing it now?

I gave an example of a $6500 1st gen Panasonic 34" screen claiming to do 480p/1080i but only had an aperature count(and associated phosphor block count) of exactly 1118 x 611. Thers no way its legitimately doing 1080i - period. Thats the whole point. The current crop of direct view "HD" CRTs dont have anywhere near enough distinct vertical or horizontal resolution do do 1080i. Whereas analog sets that are being asked to do 480i actually DO have 480 distinct vertical pixel counts(I know cause I've counted them :p.)

For a 34" set to actually support the pixels necessary to accurately produce 1080i, it would need a screen-wide pitch of .39. If my memory is correct the newest Sonys have a slot pitch of .68(one of, if not, the smallest pitch every produced on a large format CRT.) Start doing the math. That nets a maximum resolution of 1105x624, thats the best possible phosphor triad count on the screen. And that .68 is usually measured at the best location, the center of the screen. It usually gets worse as you move away from the center.

You can scan as many lines as you want to onto that fixed resolution buts its not going to increase the resolution. What they are actually doing is rescanning 1080 vertical lines over about 600 available vertical pixels. And thats why 540p would be a better choice. RCA actually tried to admit this to people with their 38" widescreen, but people didnt want to listen. And if it were accurately displaying 1080i you would be seeing scan lines and your screen overall would be about 30% dimmer at the same settings.

ANY one of the above 4 traits can completely and entirely limit resolution. To get true resolution from a direct view CRT, ALL of them have to be satisifed for that resolution.

My appraoch is to find the actual resolution of your direct view CRT, get past your initial disappointment, accept that more resolution might actually be pointless due to human eye and viewing distance limitations, and try to get your input matched to this real output.

ss

[The 600 number is found in reality relative to the current crop of 34" CRTs. The 800 vertical number I was just using as an example of when 1080i would nudge ahead of 540p IMO of those two choices on that line count. It still isnt REAL 1080i but at 800 available lines you will see more detail with 1080i. The best alternative for 800 vetical lines is always gonna be 800p, if it were an option.]
post #74 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by R Harkness
I agree with you: I absolutely can't stand poor scaling. If there is one big thingy I'm allergic to it's digital processing - anything that gives that digitized, blocky or smeary look to the image. I will take analog snow and distortions over digital any day, because at least it looks like it's a human being I'm seeing through the poor signal. Whereas poor scaling or compressed digitization of images make it look like I'm watching synthetic humans. Yuch.

When it comes to scaling regular NTSC LCDs are generally just hideous, especially the flat panels.

Luckily I find my Panasonic 42" ED plasma a stellar performer in the scaling department. Analog NTSC channels look, from my seat, pretty much completely analog - in other words the scaling looks "transparent" or invisible - no added digititis to the image. More like a good CRT image but bigger. So in general I prefer watching TV on my plasma over my Panasonic Tau tube set. A good NTSC feed, especially a digital channel without compression artifacts, can give a window-on-the world vibe. The same goes for it's scaling of DVD, which is among the smoothest I have ever seen from any display type, on to Hi-Def which it scales down shockingly well.

So don't give up hope ;)
Once convergence of the available inputs moves them closer in quality, scaling will get easier and better. An HTPC today, is already a viable otpion scaler at a relatively low cost, especillay if you can multi-task it.

ss
post #75 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
The vertical block count point isnt just interesting its the key to most of the discussions we are having.

There are 4 main things that limit resolution on a direct view CRT set.

1. Scan lines that can be produced(easiest to pull off, especially 1080i.)
2. Phosphor triad count (If there isnt a serperate phosphor for each applied pixel, it cant display distinct information.)
3. Shadow mask aperature count (If there isnt a seperate opening for the point in the shadow mask, it cant exist)
4. Beam spot size (If the beam spot is 1mm, thats the finest resolution the set can resolve, usually beam spot size and pitch are virtually identical in large format CRTs.)

ALL four of these have to be satisfied to yield a resolution. The point I have been making is the current crop of CRTs dont satisfy 3 of these 4 points. The only one they do satisfy is line count. Just beacause you have line count doesnt mean the set does that resolution.

Are you seeing it now?
Oui. I do see better what you're referring to now. Thanks for elaborating a bit more. And I agree that in the strictest of terms CRTs do not really deliver a totally discrete 2,073,600 (1920x1080) pixels of resolution... And as a general rule, I'm all in favor of more resolution and better defined pixels. But resolution on CRTs can come at price, usually in terms brightness and effective contrast, but also (in some specific cases) more compromised blacks. Like I was telling another fellow here recently, I pulled out an old 17" IDEK monitor (with great blacks btw) to see how DVDs might look on it, and it wasn't as enjoyable to watch as my other TVs because the picture was so dim. The finer dot pitch was largely to blame for that. So there can be other costs for some of the improvements you're advocating, on CRTs anyway.
Quote:
Whereas analog sets that are being asked to do 480i actually DO have 480 distinct vertical pixel counts(I know cause I've counted them :p.)
I think you've got too much time on your hands. ;)
post #76 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by ADU
Oui. I do see better what you're referring to now. Thanks for elaborating a bit more. And I agree that in the strictest of terms CRTs do not really deliver a totally discrete 2,073,600 (1920x1080) pixels of resolution... And as a general rule, I'm all in favor of more resolution and better defined pixels. But resolution on CRTs can come at price, usually in terms brightness and effective contrast, but also (in some specific cases) more compromised blacks. Like I was telling another fellow here recently, I pulled out an old 17" IDEK monitor (with great blacks btw) to see how DVDs might look on it, and it wasn't as enjoyable to watch as my other TVs because the picture was so dim. The finer dot pitch was largely to blame for that. So there can be other costs for some of the improvements you're advocating, on CRTs anyway.
More resolution on a CRT might or might not be a help even if there were no downside.

The first thing you need to decide in choosing a display device is how far away you usually are going to be. This determines the finest resolution your eyes can resolve, more has very limited returns and in the case of a CRT like you said, will sacrifice light output. The device should not be expected to change resolution or image size(because ultimately it cant.)

Generally speaking if you are about 8' away this pitch is about .9mm(a very common pitch in large format CRTs btw) for the average person and about .68mm(I believe this is actually Sony's new pitch) at 6'.

So what Sony actually did with their Super Fine pitch screens while increasing resolution without increasing size on their 34" sets was to actually ask you to sit closer. Unless you had LASIK in the interim:p . And the reason WHY they did this is because they are approaching the upper end of screen size at those line counts. They decided to actually just give you more ACTUAL vertical/horizontal phosphor triads to try to resolve the same resolution(1080i) on.

DVDs would look great on your 17" IDEK monitor if you have a good scaled output and you want your face about 2' from the screen.

And, for the record, I am not advocating more resolution. I am advocating scaling output to the ACTUAL resolution of the set in a progressive fashion. You will get no better picture from a CRT than that assuming good scaling. If my math is right that would be somewhere between 540-640p on the new Sony sets, not 1080i. I dont have a problem with the resolution on the current sets, I have a problem with how that resolution is being used and packaged.

I(as are many people) am also disappointed with the ultimate size of current CRTs.

We dont need more resolution on small CRTs, we need more resolution on bigger CRTs(unfortunately this is nigh on impossible.) And we need to recognize what we need relates to how far we sit away and what screen size we want/have. They are all interactive.

If you want true 720p from a 34" set, expect to be sitting about 4.5' from the screen to experince the full effect. I'm not sitting that close no matter what it does, so 720p on a 34" screen is pointless to me(and would sacrifice light output.) 540-600p I could see.



Quote:
I think you've got too much time on your hands. ;)
I find that actually measuring things myself dispels a lot of misinfo, that or a call to a helpful tech dept. If I had invested 2k in one of these Sony sets, the first thing I would have done was attempt a phosphor count.

ss
post #77 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth

CRTs can be described as fixed pixel devices even if they accomodate various resolutions and some devices characterized as fixel pixel devices can accomodate various resolutions(by turning off pixels which is exactly what a CRT does.)

I think fixed-pixel is one of those terms that is being misused. The location and count of the phosphor blocks(pixels on a CRT-or one of the limiting parameters to pixel count on a CRT) dont move or change in number.

My platform(in honor of the election year) is all display devices are fundamentally fixed pixel and this is a GOOD thing.
ss
I will have to disagree with your platform. What your saying is that every display has a set # of pixels (or dots). You are taking the term too literally.

What the term "fixed pixel" means is that there is a defined "native" resolution/definition which is "set" or fixed by an array of discrete pixels and any incoming signal must be scaled to meet that definition. Seperate packets of information must be sent to each pixel.

Maybe it should be called "fixed definition" :)

CRTs are not "fixed definition" regardless if they are multiscan or not. If you play a VHS tape (240x480i) on a 480i CRT there is no need to scale. Why? because the analog signal is literally drawn onto the screen over as many (dots) that are necessary. The screen only acts as a canvass to the electron gun. Yes there is a "maximum definition" set by the # of dots but that is not what we are talking about.

Try playing (240x480) signal onto a fixed pixel display and the signal must be scaled to the proper definition so that each discrete packet of information can be sent to the proper pixel.


As far as flicker,
- it is caused by the scanning nature of CRTs which leave a black space between luminence pulses. 60Hz is fast enough for most people.

As far as black levels,

CRTs have the best because without cathodeluminescence there is no light output (in a dark room of course)

LCD - leak light through the polarizers (shorter the wavelength the more leakage)

Plasma - must seed the gas cells with electrons using a priming pulse which causes unwanted light emission during black periods


Cheers
post #78 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by xrox
I will have to disagree with your platform. What your saying is that every display has a set # of pixels (or dots). You are taking the term too literally.

What the term "fixed pixel" means is that there is a defined "native" resolution/definition which is "set" or fixed by an array of discrete pixels and any incoming signal must be scaled to meet that definition. Seperate packets of information must be sent to each pixel.

Maybe it should be called "fixed definition" :)

CRTs are not "fixed definition" regardless if they are multiscan or not. If you play a VHS tape (240x480i) on a 480i CRT there is no need to scale. Why? because the analog signal is literally drawn onto the screen over as many (dots) that are necessary. The screen only acts as a canvass to the electron gun. Yes there is a "maximum definition" set by the # of dots but that is not what we are talking about.

Try playing (240x480) signal onto a fixed pixel display and the signal must be scaled to the proper definition so that each discrete packet of information can be sent to the proper pixel.

Sorry I cant agree. You are confusing resolvable horizontal resolution of various NTSC sources with fixed resolution.

We are generally dismissing NTSC as an option but just to show you why your logic is mistaken, think what a VHS S-video source would look like on a scaler equipped plasma for instance. Would it look half as wide as tall because using your example its 240x480? No, it will be a 4:3 profile. Even if it only has 240 resolvable horizontal pixels, a correctly functioning scaler is going to turn that 240 into 640. Because a key part of any NTSC signal is its 4:3 profile.

Make sense? NTSC cable, DVD, and VHS all have a 4:3 profile with exactly 480i of vertical lines and a varying amount of actual horizontal resolution but it will always be scaled to 640 wide(assuming square/round pixels.)

Youre doing apples and oranges.

ATSC is a complete pixel address system. NTSC in this era = 640x480(or any other scalable number in a 4:3 profile.)

And all CRTs are equally as fixed pixel as a plasma is. Anything short of their full available resolution progressively driven is a sacrifice in ability, just like it would be on a plasma, LCD, etc. No difference.

ss
post #79 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Sorry I cant agree. You are confusing resolvable horizontal resolution of various NTSC sources with fixed resolution.
I thought what we were arguing was the term 'fixed pixel' ? Which in fact are "FIXED" resolution/definition displays. CRTs are NOT!

There is a transistor behind each pixel. All pixels are seperately addressed. Just because you think different than the entire display world doesn't make you right.

To put it differently

LCD/Plasma/DLP (or whatever uses seperately addressed pixels) have a "NATIVE RESOLUTION"
CRT has a "NATIVE FREQUENCY (s)" with variable horizontal resolution!!!
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
We are generally dismissing NTSC as an option but just to show you why your logic is mistaken, think what a VHS S-video source would look like on a scaler equipped plasma for instance. Would it look half as wide as tall because using your example its 240x480? No, it will be a 4:3 profile. Even if it only has 240 resolvable horizontal pixels, a correctly functioning scaler is going to turn that 240 into 640. Because a key part of any NTSC signal is its 4:3 profile.
(sigh)
my logic is not mistaken. I am arguing the term "fixed pixel" which digital displays clearly are, and CRT clearly are not. If you cannot see that and think it is a mistake then that is no big deal to me. Just stop trying to convince me I'm wrong when every course I've taken in the past 4 years tells me you're wrong..............

In fact your logic is above is mistaken. 240 on a CRT is 240. On a flat panel "FIXED PIXEL" display, 240 MUST be converted to 720 (or 640) or whatever it takes to match the transistor array..............
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Make sense? NTSC cable, DVD, and VHS all have a 4:3 profile with exactly 480i of vertical lines and a varying amount of actual horizontal resolution but it will always be scaled to 640 wide(assuming square/round pixels.)
Youre doing apples and oranges.
No it will not??? There is no scaling in this situation? 240 is drawn over the width of the screen. That is how a CRT gun works. There is no manipulation of the signal whatsoever!! Unless of coarse the guns frequency is different than the signal ie (480p gun vs 480i signal). You think apples are oranges?

Now in a "FIXED PIXEL" display thier MUST be signal manipulation to match the native resolution.
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
And all CRTs are equally as fixed pixel as a plasma is.
uhm........no! :)

Please by all means continue to believe that CRTs are fixed pixel displays and I will disagree and think they are not. It is rather unimportant and lets leave it at that. Please, no more tries at convincing me otherwise.

Cheers

P.S. - if you want to make a stand on a truly misused term then 'resolution' would be it. 720x480 is not a 'resolution' it is a 'definition'.
post #80 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by xrox
What are you talking about? I thought it was the term 'fixed pixel' which in fact are "FIXED" resolution/definition displays. CRTs are NOT!!!!!!

There is a transistor behind each pixel. All pixels are seperately addressed. Just because you think different than the entire display world doesn't make you right.

To put it differently

LCD/Plasma/DLP (or whatever uses seperately addressed pixels) have a "NATIVE RESOLUTION"
CRT has a "NATIVE FREQUENCY (s)" with variable horizontal resolution!!!

(sigh)
my logic is not mistaken. I am arguing the term "fixed pixel" which digital displays clearly are, and CRT clearly are not. If you cannot see that and think it is a mistake then that is no big deal to me. Just stop trying to convince me I'm wrong when every course I've taken in the past 4 years tells me you're wrong..............

In fact your logic is above is mistaken. 240 on a CRT is 240. On a flat panel "FIXED PIXEL" display, 240 MUST be converted to 720 (or 640) or whatever it takes to match the transistor array..............

No it will not??? There is no scaling in this situation? 240 is drawn over the width of the screen. That is how a CRT gun works. There is no manipulation of the signal whatsoever!! Unless of coarse the guns frequency is different than the signal ie (480p gun vs 480i signal). You think apples are oranges?

Now in a "FIXED PIXEL" display thier MUST be signal manipulation to match the native resolution.

uhm........no! :)

Please by all means continue to believe that CRTs are fixed pixel displays and I will disagree and think they are not. It is rather unimportant and lets leave it at that. Please, no more tries at convincing me otherwise.

Cheers
Well you are wrong. Not only do I believe CRT are fixed pixel devices, I can prove it to anyone with a TV.

Lets take NTSC for starters(even though it is becoming less and less important,) if you go down to your local Sears store and find say a JVC 36" analog TV set and actually sit down and count the available seperate phosphor triads on the screen you will likely find ~640 in the horizontal and exactly 480 in the vertical, but regardless what it is it is a definable FIXED number. That is the FIXED maximum resolution this screen can produce(unless it is limited by another factor.) Whatever the lowest resolution count is in the CRT resolution factors(phosphor triad count, beam spot size, or shadow mask aperature count) is that CRTs maximum resolution.

Can we agree on that?

NTSC was originally a fully analog signal specifying a vertical line rate and a screen profile. How much ACTUAL input resolution(dependent on so many other variables its ridiculous) is in the horizontal(or vertical for that matter as long as it is 525/480 visible) has nothing to do with whether a display device varies its resolution. Its and apples and oranges discussion. The maximum resolution of any CRT is defined the day its manufactured.

Secondly just the fact that CRT screens can be addressed digitally(computer monitors) and have a fixed maximum resolution count(see above), dispels your idea in its entirety.

You THINK the resolution of a CRT changes with the scanning frequency its fed, but it does not. ALL that changes is how well its FIXED permanent resolution is being used. And its exactly the same affect as feeding a less than max feed to a plasma, LCD, etc.

A CRT's ACTUAL maximum resolution no more changes than a 1280x720 plasma does when being fed 480p. If a 1280x720 plasma is fed a direct throughput 480p signal, the plasma just doesnt use all its available resolution(just like a CRT doesnt when fed a less than maximum line count.) There is no difference in the way these devices respond to a less than maximum signal, therefore neither are truly "flexible" pixel count devices. CRTs are no more variable rate than a plasma, the only question is how well do you want to use the resolution you have. Some CRTs allow for different rates to be fed to them, but anything short of its precise actual resolution is a step down in its ability just like it would be on a "fixed pixel" device. I know, I have fed 480p direct to "fixed" display devices that can do anywhere from 480p to 768p.

You have some understanding of how display devices work, but you need to delve deeper to understand if the above doesnt explain it. CRTs are just as fixed or variable as any other device. A less than a maximum feed compromises all devices equally. The more you think they are variable, the less well you are using their abilities.

ss

On a side note, how the pixels are addressed might make an interesting discussion about what is a digital device and what isnt, but ultimately all display devices are analog, so really whats the point?

edit: I will give you that there is and has been a lot of misinformation fed to you by CRT manufacturers because few want to actually tell you the limits of their devices. They know you will be disappointed, at least initially. There is no reason Sony for instance could not tell you in a heartbeat exactly what the max resolution is of their 34XBR960 is and why its not posted on their website with the sets other info. They say things like 65% more resolution than earlier sets. What earlier sets? They didnt say the actual resolutions of those sets either. They choose not to say for your peace of mind.
post #81 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Well you are wrong.

Lemme see if I can simplify this to a way you can understand.
LOL - what are you twelve?
don't worry, no offence taken.....

I guess I and everyone else in the display industry is completely wrong. You should do a lecture circuit to enlighten us all.......LOL :) (kidding)

Look I'm not here to make you look stupid. I just disagree, backed by a large majority of scientists.......:)

You see I'm not blabbing about stuff I "THINK" I know. And if I do, I put the words "I think" in front of them. The only thing I know for sure is what scientists teach me. If they are wrong then it is my fault for listening. I'm not here to pad my ego by flexing my knowledge but rather to learn even more than what I am taught at work and in the industry. While there is not enough science here to keep me here daily it does crop up enough to make me visit as much as possible.

You should visit the Flat Panel forum here and ask Rogo to give you a lesson on "fixed pixel" devices (both business and science)-he's the man.

BTW, I think I know what you are thinking. That because the dots "you count" on the screen are fixed that it is a fixed pixel display. But that is not what "fixed pixel" means. Look up the definition of "fixed pixel" and see if CRT is ever mentioned except as an opposite. Then ask yourself why you are the only one who thinks that is wrong?

In fact go to your browser search engine and type - CRT "fixed pixel"


Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
How the pixels are addressed might make an interesting discussion about what is a digital device and what isnt, but ultimately all display devices are analog, so really whats the point? [/b]
LOL - I agree it does make an interesting discussion.

apart from 'resolution' being a totally misused term (industry just accepts it)
'digital-CRT' is also misused since there is no such thing.

but you may think 'digital' is misued in PDP and LCD because the discrete pixel signal must be converted to DC current to fire the cells but you are mistaken. Once a signal is processed into discrete packets of digital information for each transistor it is considered a true digital display because the signal for each pixel has been processed digitally. Only possible in a "FIXED PIXEL" display!

The same cannot be said for CRT

Yes LCD and Plasma emit light from analog current signals but the signal is processed digitally right down to the discrete pixel level.

I once argued that all displays are analog on the sane basis and was shown the light by the OLED and LCD scientists here at work.

Cheers
post #82 of 261
Umm...I don't know if its been mentioned before but...

OLED and Samsung/Toshiba/Canon "Thin CRT" technology has been put forth many times as a possible "CRT Killer" display technology. What do you guys think?

Also I think that some of the quality (bu not all) of a CRT vs. a larger RPTV or Plasma is mistaken for the advantage of smaller size. CRT's cannot be scaled up past 36-40"...therefore you can never fully realize the difference between a 50" Plasma display and a 36" CRT direct-view because you can't resolve all the detail on the latter...although given a 37" Plasma and a 36" CRT, geometry problems aside, I would go with the latter most of the time...

-IR
post #83 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by xrox
LOL - what are you twelve?
don't worry, no offence taken.....

I guess I and everyone else in the display industry is completely wrong. You should do a lecture circuit to enlighten us all.......LOL :) (kidding)

Look I'm not here to make you look stupid. I just disagree, backed by a large majority of scientists.......:)

You see I'm not blabbing about stuff I "THINK" I know. And if I do, I put the words "I think" in front of them. The only thing I know for sure is what scientists teach me. If they are wrong then it is my fault for listening. I'm not here to pad my ego by flexing my knowledge but rather to learn even more than what I am taught at work and in the industry. While there is not enough science here to keep me here daily it does crop up enough to make me visit as much as possible.

You should visit the Flat Panel forum here and ask Rogo to give you a lesson on "fixed pixel" devices (both business and science)-he's the man.

BTW, I think I know what you are thinking. That because the dots "you count" on the screen are fixed that it is a fixed pixel display. But that is not what "fixed pixel" means. Look up the definition of "fixed pixel" and see if CRT is ever mentioned except as an opposite. Then ask yourself why you are the only one who thinks that is wrong?

In fact go to your browser search engine and type - CRT "fixed pixel"




LOL - I agree it does make an interesting discussion.

apart from 'resolution' being a totally misused term (industry just accepts it)
'digital-CRT' is also misused since there is no such thing.

but you may think 'digital' is misued in PDP and LCD because the discrete pixel signal must be converted to DC current to fire the cells but you are mistaken. Once a signal is processed into discrete packets of digital information for each transistor it is considered a true digital display because the signal for each pixel has been processed digitally. Only possible in a "FIXED PIXEL" display!

The same cannot be said for CRT

Yes LCD and Plasma emit light from analog current signals but the signal is processed digitally right down to the discrete pixel level.

I once argued that all displays are analog on the sane basis and was shown the light by the OLED and LCD scientists here at work.

Cheers
Not 12 at all just stating a fact. And I dont know who it is that your are studying under but I would be more than willing to discuss it with them as well. Perhaps I am missing it, dont think so tho.

Fixed pixel as a term has no set definition. I know it has been used with misleading definitions. I will be using "fixed-pixel" device below to segregate based on your beliefs(excluding CRTs.)

Lets start at the beginning, because those phosphor triads dont move means it is a fixed pixel device. That is the entire point. Perhaps you could more clearly explain how a CRT device has non-fixed pixels? Explain to me how they move around change size shape or number? AFAIK I know they dont. You can compromise and send various signals to a CRT like any other device, doesnt mean its a good idea.

What I believe you are confusing is the actual output and how it is used. There is no manipulation that can be done to a CRT that cant be done to any other device, so CRTs have no unique characteristics there. Unless youre trying to hang your hat on complete analog signal path which is moot in this day and age anyway(you could build an analog version of most of these "fixed-pixel" devices btw, but that would be a step backward.)

Lets run them down so maybe you can explain otherwise.

-Do CRTs and all "fixed-pixel" devices have a maximum definable resolution? Yes

-Can you feed CRTs and other "fixed-pixel" devices various line rates? Yes

-Is using something other than CRTs or any "fixed-pixel" device's exact actual resolution a compromise in some way? Yes

-(Nothing to do with our point, just gonna bounce the rubble)Can a specific pixel on a CRT screen be digitally addressed? Yes if the electronics are exactly in sync with the screen, which is very doable.

-Are there horizontal input resolution restictions for CRTs or any "fixed-pixel" device as long as appropriately scaled? Nope

-Do CRTs and other "fixed-pixel" devices scale various inputs for display? Yes, different electronics but the same effect.

So that we have clear talking points, and so that you can explain why a CRT is a more variable resolution device lets cover those above. I am seeing no significant differences between output or pixel address in CRT vs any other "fixed-pixel" device. Maybe I'm confused or havent studied enough under "industry insiders" ;) .

Unless you can prove CRT phosphors move or change number or size, its a fixed pixel device. None of the other behavior driving the output is unique and exclusive to CRTs, therefore moot.



Seperate issue, pixel address.

On the pixel address issue lets start at the result and work back ok?

Is light output digital or analog? analog

Is electricty digital or analog? analog

Is a phosphor glowing digital or analog? analog

Is the location of the pixel to perform the above digital or analog? I could argue either way, but lets call it digital.

So lets break it down by device.

Where does digital end for a:

"digital" CRT? The signal steam in the gun

Plasma? the signal to each pixel block

LCD? light output from the LCD panel

DLP? light output from the DLP chip

LCoS? light output from the LCoS panel

Are any of the above points a significant departure from CRT as a base? No, especially in the case of a plasma. Plasmas are very similar in their display production to CRTs. SED will be the same. All modern display devices have both digital and analog components now.


Have fun:D

ss
post #84 of 261
Why should I respond when it is obvious it will be a waste of time on deaf ears.

You are convinced, and nothing can change that, even the fact that the definition of 'fixed pixel' , which eludes you, is pretty much "anything but a CRT" LOL :)

Anyway, I'll probably be getting a real fixed pixel CRT in the future.

It's called an FED............
Cheers
post #85 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by IRelayer
Umm...I don't know if its been mentioned before but...

OLED and Samsung/Toshiba/Canon "Thin CRT" technology has been put forth many times as a possible "CRT Killer" display technology. What do you guys think?

Also I think that some of the quality (bu not all) of a CRT vs. a larger RPTV or Plasma is mistaken for the advantage of smaller size. CRT's cannot be scaled up past 36-40"...therefore you can never fully realize the difference between a 50" Plasma display and a 36" CRT direct-view because you can't resolve all the detail on the latter...although given a 37" Plasma and a 36" CRT, geometry problems aside, I would go with the latter most of the time...

-IR
I think if "thin CRT" can be pulled of for a reasonable price, it will be an all killer.

The advantage to CRT now is the color pallette, speed of response, and black level. If that can be scaled up at a reasonable price, the sky is the limit.

Size for size CRT is that good btw. The size limits are the lone problems IMO.

ss
post #86 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by xrox
Why should I respond when it is obvious it will be a waste of time on deaf ears.

You are convinced, and nothing can change that, even the fact that the definition of 'fixed pixel' , which eludes you, is pretty much "anything but a CRT" LOL :)

Anyway, I'll probably being getting a real fixed pixel CRT in the future.

It's called an FED............
Cheers
I can be convicned if you can show me how CRT pixels move, change shape or location. Or some other way show me how they have non-fixed pixels.

And I think it would be helpful for the forum in general to dispel these myths one way or the other.

Its not hard if you are correct - correct?

ss:)
post #87 of 261
Lemme give you some hints, and maybe this will ferret out the source of our communication problem.

A CRT is inherently a device of a fixed resolution(fixed pixel if you will.)

[Analog CRTs by the strictest definition could be considered non-fixed pixel devices but IMO are as effectively digital in their site address as the current CRT HDTVs. Meaning the resolutions of analog NTSC signals have so long been established, the sets are built in a way that implies fixed pixel but again tangential to our discussion.]

All CRT computer monitors and HDTVs are/should be fixed pixel devices(there's little debate about computer monitors but there should be alot of debate about the current crop of CRT "HDTVs.")

Having a CRT display operate as a fixed pixel device at exactly its fullest resolution is the ultimate incarnation of that CRT(or any fixel pixel device.) You can make operational compromises like running multiple phospor blocks to diplay as a single pixel, but not without loss of resolution and again not exclusive to CRT.

Thats more than hints but anyway there it is. And thats why there is little effective difference between a properly calibrated CRT and another "fixed-pixel" device.

ss
post #88 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Lemme give you some hints, and maybe this will ferret out the source of our communication problem.

A CRT is inherently a device of a fixed resolution(fixed pixel if you will.)

[Analog CRTs by the strictest definition could be considered non-fixed pixel devices but IMO are as effectively digital in their site address as the current CRT HDTVs. Meaning the resolutions of analog NTSC signals have so long been established, the sets are built in a way that implies fixed pixel but again tangential to our discussion.]

All CRT computer monitors and HDTVs are/should be fixed pixel devices(there's little debate about computer monitors but there should be alot of debate about the current crop of CRT "HDTVs.")

Having a CRT display operate as a fixed pixel device at exactly its fullest resolution is the ultimate incarnation of that CRT(or any fixel pixel device.) You can make operational compromises like running multiple phospor blocks to diplay as a single pixel, but not without loss of resolution and again not exclusive to CRT.

Thats more than hints but anyway there it is. And thats why there is little effective difference between a properly calibrated CRT and another "fixed-pixel" device.

ss
LOL

Please wallow in your delusion..............(46&2 is just ahead of you..)

We both know no one on this planet can change your mind! If you want to know why CRT is not fixed pixel in the future please read my posts above and maybe even look it up somewhere or ask someone much more knowledgeable than me or EVEN you........

Time...to stop....wasting time!

I have to get back to work now (46&2 is just ahead of you..)

Cheers
post #89 of 261
I would like to offer another perspective on CRT construction and its impact on viewable resolution. I am by NO means an expert in this area, but I do believe that I understand and have personally seen the differences that I describe below.

I am talking about the difference between a direct-view color CRT and a front- or rear-projection combo of three monochrome CRTs--one for each primary color.

The direct-view CRT definitely has a physical resolution limit based on the size and placement of individual phosphors and the triples or stripes of the three primary colors that make up a point on the screen capable of displaying a full range of colors.

A single color/monochrome CRT, in contrast, has a "continuous" phosphor coating of a single "color." The small size of the monochrome CRT and the physical properties of the phosphor coating together influence the maximum available resolution, along with the size of the spot delivered by the scanning electron beam.

Aiming the ouptuts of the three monochrome CRTs in perfect alignment (convergence) on the shared projection screen allows a single point of light to vary in color. Theorectically, these points of light could be small enough to match the actual pixel size needed to display the picture at its delivered resolution. If the electronics and CRTs could handle all of the ATSC-defined picture sizes and "resolutions" (by varying beam sizes and scanning rates accordingly), then this type of display device would not be "fixed pixel" at all. The pixel size would vary to match the delivered content. Of course, reality places several limits physically and electronically that reduce the flexibility of the 3-monochrome-CRT effective "resolution."

The scanning rates and beam sizes are issues for both the direct-view color CRTs and the monochrome CRTs. Small-screen direct-view CRTs (e.g., 30" and 34" 16x9 screens) have phosphor stripes or trio sizes that are large enough to significantly reduce the visible "resolution" from the original HDTV signal opportunity. The newer Sony and older RCA fine-pitch CRTS (like the RCA 36" 4x3 and 38" 16x9 tubes, both also used by a few other manufacturers) offer approximately 30% smaller phosphor stripes/trios than the "normal" CRTs of comparable size. These are examples of differences of minimum "pixel" size affecting maximum viewable resolution.

I am not trying to take sides or argue with anyone here. I am just trying to share my understandings. I will gladly accept constructive feedback that corrects or clarifies anything I have presented here.
post #90 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by xrox
LOL

Please wallow in your delusion..............(46&2 is just ahead of you..)

We both know no one on this planet can change your mind! If you want to know why CRT is not fixed pixel in the future please read my posts above and maybe even look it up somewhere or ask someone much more knowledgeable than me or EVEN you........

Time...to stop....wasting time!

I have to get back to work now (46&2 is just ahead of you..)

Cheers
Likewise. You believe youre right but cant support why. I have explained why a CRT is fixel pixel device and why all the characteristics you seem to believe seperate CRTs from other devices are not unique. You seem to be falling back on "its an industry term and I'm up on this stuff." Maybe on your CRTs the pixels do move around.:)

46&2 ?

Anyway its been fun.

ss

edit: And if this hasnt been clear(but should be because thats what started this whole thing) I know how the industry uses the term fixed-pixel. I believe in the case of direct-view CRTs thats a mis-assessment of their capabilities.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › A Salute To The Humble Direct View Tube TV.