or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › CRT Projectors › Putting the Digital VS. CRT debate to an end for GOOD.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Putting the Digital VS. CRT debate to an end for GOOD. - Page 2  

post #31 of 292
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ecrabb


PS - Isn't the native res on that DILA a weird 1366 x 1024 or something?
Yeah it sure is and boy does it look sweet....

Cliff
post #32 of 292
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by darinp2
Here are a couple of specs people might notice:

First Ship: Aug 2000
Last Ship: May 2003

I'm not saying the G15 is a bad machine, but this is a little bit like comparing to a Pentium 3 when it comes to digitals. It does seem to be true that LCOS hasn't advanced as fast as DLP or LCD since the G15 was introduced though. Four and a half years is quite a while in digital technology improvements. And yes I do know that the CRT is older, but CRT advancement slowed down long ago. Digital advancement hasn't. If anything it seems to be picking up speed to me.

You may also notice the on/off spec of 350:1. It was possible to get higher than that with Dilard software and possibly an adjustment to the 1/4 wave plates, but I don't know if your G15 has had all that done. In any case, it would pale in comparison to the 4k:1+ possible with some single chip DLPs.

--Darin
Darin,

While the projector is not in production anymore, the specs are VERY high end for a digital would you not agree??

Is this not the same technology (albeat improved) used in the Qualia??

No, I did not calibrate with dilard, just with Nokia and I do realize that the contrast ratio can be brought up much higher with dilard, but at the same time, what about the bulb?? What about the black levels?? I know all of this factors in the final picture, but I just dont see how you could get rid of the "bulb shining through factor" no matter how much calibration you do.

Also, I saw a $40K Runco 3 chip DLP at my local HT shop properly calibrated and the picture from this G15 is better by far big time.

Cliff
post #33 of 292
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by cmjohnson
Deron's comments are right on. I was going to say the same thing.

Artificial sharpness due to the fixed pixel structure is NOT a desirable thing,
and a good CRT projector that has what it takes to fully resolve the same
resolution (or greater) than the digital projector can generate an image that
is very sharp and very well resolved without false sharpness artifacts which
are part and parcel of every digital projector available to date.

I'm still playing with my first 9500LC, getting a feel for its limits and
capabilities, but I can assure you, at 1600x1200, when hooked to a PC,
what's on the screen is as sharp and clear as the image on this 2000 dollar
20" professional graphics monitor (Sony) in front of me. I'll be pushing the
9500LC up into still higher resolutions and tweaking the setup to see how
far it'll go, but it's already kicking arse at resolutions beyond the capabilites
of most new digital projectors.

Don't mistake fixed pixels for real sharpness.

CJ

Ummm..... I'm going to PM you my address and Kindly Please send me that Marquee :^)

Cliff
post #34 of 292
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Clarence
This debate was ended back in December...
Coming for Christmas - the Definitive CRT versus Digital Shootout
LOL!! Damn your funny. Where is QQQ??

Cliff
post #35 of 292
Quote:
Originally posted by overclkr
While the projector is not in production anymore, the specs are VERY high end for a digital would you not agree??
The CR is VERY low end. Some other things are good. I can't think of a current HT model projector with lower or even equal on/off CR spec.
Quote:

Is this not the same technology (albeat improved) used in the Qualia??
Yugo had the same technology as Ferrari in one sense. ;) Yes, they are both LCOS. The Qualia has improved on the G15 by quite a bit though. 5x the on/off CR and much better ANSI CR, not even counting the pixel count, 16x9, etc.
Quote:
What about the black levels??
Black levels are all about CR from a particular white level (it is easy math). As I said, the CR isn't very good.
Quote:

I know all of this factors in the final picture, but I just dont see how you could get rid of the "bulb shining through factor" no matter how much calibration you do.
If you mean the "bulb shining through factor" for the G15 then yes, it has low CR whether calibrated or not. One way is low and the other way is very low. If you mean "bulb shining through factor" with respect to all digitals, well, that is what smart engineers are for. To solve problems like that. It is a much less complicated problem than going to Mars in my book. By orders of magnitude.
Quote:

Also, I saw a $40K Runco 3 chip DLP at my local HT shop properly calibrated and the picture from this G15 is better by far big time.
I haven't seen it, so I can't comment directly, but there are differences between the two and the G15 even has the pixel count and fill ratio advantage. The Runco has some obvious advantages over the G15 also. By far the biggest weakness of the G15 is its low CR in my book. In general, there are a lot of people who would prefer the Runco, no questions asked. A lot of it does depend on setup as different people prefer different things though.

--Darin
post #36 of 292
I have seen a G15 calibrated by William Phelps many times at a friends and while the picture is very sharp indeed, blacks are just grey.
We can sit here and debat that the mastering may be incorrect and all the issues of black being at 16 and that there is information below that, but the bottom line is, if the PJ won't make black, it won't have any depth of field or that 3D look.
I for one have been following LCOS as I believed if there was a digital technology that was going to produce a very good picture, this might be it. But frankly I am very disappointed in JVC lack of pusing this technology forward with their newest models and fixing what I think are glaring problems.
Sony did a pretty good job with the Qualia but it still lacks what a G90 will do. Now a Qualia in a 70" RPTV, that is something to behold.....but at $13K.
At CES the best demo I saw for FP was in the Marantz booth. They are using the "dark chip" technology (I think??) and the blacks were very good indeed. DVD playback looked very good but it is still a 720P projector and they are going to have to get to 1080P to satisfy my eye......maybe.
The TI booth representation of the 1080P DLP RPTV's was absolutely awesome in the 70" configuration. We should start to see those hit the streets pretty soon.
My eyes and brain still process information on a seamless analog basis and I have a hard time getting used to looking at digital at such a low resolution as 720P when blown up to a 110" screen. But take a 1080P DLP and project it on a 70" screen and things start to get interesting.

Terry
post #37 of 292
Darin,
You are good man. You would make a good teacher I think. This thread really has been done to the point that I'm surprised that you have the patience to go through all of this again( the good teacher in you I guess:) ).

Qualia and HD2K projectors produce fantastic pictures and are so much better than the G15, G150 that I think this is a waste of time. CRTs have gorgeous pictures if set up well and excel in some parameters that are important to some of us. The HD2K and Qualia excel in others. I wouldn't trade either the HD2K or Qualia for what I have but they still produce great images with enough in their column to call them the best.

Art
post #38 of 292
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by overclkr


I have come to the conclusion that no matter what Digital you own, black levels are sacrificed big time. You just can't stop light flow from a nice bright bulb although, I will admit, with the JVC anyway, that is it's only drawback. Black Levels.
........
Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is absolutely no reason the blocking light flow can't be solved - stick a piece of card in front of your projector and the screen goes black.

I still think a hybrid technology with two active systems would work, something like a mono LCD panel behind the DLP chip, or like an LCD with stacked panels or something similar where the 'stray' light that gets past the first barrier doesn't get through the second in a perceivable quantity.
post #39 of 292
Quote:
Originally posted by Chuchuf
I have seen a G15 calibrated by William Phelps many times at a friends and while the picture is very sharp indeed, blacks are just grey.
I think we can agree that the G15 is not representative of the performance levels currently available in digitals. Especially when it comes to black levels. Heck, a $1200 InFocus 4805 would trounce it in black levels (but not in pixel smoothness).
Quote:
We can sit here and debat that the mastering may be incorrect and all the issues of black being at 16 and that there is information below that,
If your projector is blacking out when it is sent things that are higher than 16 then it is calibrated incorrectly and will lose shadow detail in other scenes. You seem to have missed that point. And if they are encoded higher then only a miscalibrated projector will actually do what is being espoused.

And I didn't say there was information below that. 16 is black. If you calibrate so 17 blacks out then you have hidden real image information. My statement didn't depend on any BTB data.
Quote:

but the bottom line is, if the PJ won't make black, it won't have any depth of field or that 3D look.
I agree with you that blacks are important, but the bottom line is that depth of field and 3D look don't depend on a projector being able to blackout at all. Those are issues with instantaneous CRs in those scenes. While those instantanenous CRs are related to on/off CR and ANSI CR, it takes both, but it doesn't take infinite on/off CR. The CRTs you love won't "make black" in any mixed scene if you define it as no light and if you define it otherwise then many digitals can already "make black". If you think that a CRT with even 20k:1 on/off and 150:1 ANSI CR can do blacks well enough in average brightness scenes to support the 3D look then you have to acknowledge that a digital with 4k:1 on/off and 500:1 ANSI CR has plenty of black level ability for those same scenes, since it will have even better instantaneous CR for those than the CRT. As you know from looking at things like the Marantz there are digitals that are worlds better than the G15 as far as CR (and therefore blacks). The number of non-blackout scenes where the CRTs have the instantaneous CR advantage is getting smaller and smaller. The digitals still have a ways to go IMO though.

In short, if you are talking about blackouts then the encodings are important and if you are talking about non-blackouts then being able to "make black" in a blackout sense isn't required.

--Darin
post #40 of 292
To my eye the thing that bothers most about any digital FP that I have viewed to date is all just seem to have a "fake" look to the picture.

This to me is plainly evident even on RP sets when kicking tires in the electronics stores. Love the smell of electronics in the morning:) .

I suspect part of this is caused by a lifetime of viewing video on CRT based displays of one type or another. The old brain just knows what it should look like.

I also think that the use of gray screens in search of the elusive blacks, just makes things worse for digital projection. The muted colors, particularly the red spectrum, just kills any chance of producing a picture with 3d depth IMHO.
post #41 of 292
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Art Sonneborn
Darin,
You are good man. You would make a good teacher I think. This thread really has been done to the point that I'm surprised that you have the patience to go through all of this again( the good teacher in you I guess:) ).

Qualia and HD2K projectors produce fantastic pictures and are so much better than the G15, G150 that I think this is a waste of time. CRTs have gorgeous pictures if set up well and excel in some parameters that are important to some of us. The HD2K and Qualia excel in others. I wouldn't trade either the HD2K or Qualia for what I have but they still produce great images with enough in their column to call them the best.

Art
Now I haven't actually seen a Qualia in action yet, but the 3 chip Runco I have. Why does my G15 look so much better??

All digitals I have laid my eyes on to this point just don't do black well period. On a 4:3 screen with a 16:9 movie or HDTV source place your hand in front of the screen and you literally see a shadow. How close does the Qualia come to good blacks??

Like I said before, digital DOES have great qualities that CRT (at least 8") cannot match. I say the same for CRT over digital as well. It's a preference. Different people like different things right??

For now, I say CRT is still king for home theatre and will be for at least the next 2 years (maybe longer). Hell, I don't need to tell you that. Just take a walk down to that smokin' theatre you built and look on the ceiling ;)

Cliff
post #42 of 292
Quote:
Originally posted by overclkr
Like I said before, digital DOES have great qualities that CRT (at least 8") cannot match. I say the same for CRT over digital as well. It's a preference. Different people like different things right??

Cliff
Perhaps my lack of expertise in this field is a contributing factor, but I watched portions of XMen 2 last night on my 8" CRT setup and it was astounding.

I really can't fathom how it can get much better. I just really appreciate the fact that everything is so film-like now. I don't think CRT is going anywhere, you just can't beat it for the price.
post #43 of 292
Quote:
Originally posted by Chuchuf

At CES the best demo I saw for FP was in the Marantz booth. They are using the "dark chip" technology (I think??) and the blacks were very good indeed. DVD playback looked very good but it is still a 720P projector and they are going to have to get to 1080P to satisfy my eye......maybe.
Terry,
Is this the SED technology that is being demoed and talked about? Supposed to be very similar to crt.


John
post #44 of 292
Quote:
Originally posted by Deja Vu
Watching either digital or film is like listening to speakers with weak base. It doesn't matter how good the mid and high end sounds - you squirm at the lack of low end, especially when the material calls for it and nothing happens! Once you get used to the "blacks" of CRT (the bottom end or foundation) then it becomes very difficult to accept less. The opening scene in Equilibrium or the coffin scene in Kill Bill Vol. 2 expose even the better digials as lacking in black level. Play these scenes on a digital and then immediately on a good CRT in a fully light controlled room and the difference is very, very apparent! The apparent sharpness of digital is nice, but it doesn't make up for the lack of "bottom end".

Cheers,

Grant
The audio analogy is right on the money, Grant. And that's the thing that always tickled me about the digital projector forum back when those D-ILA's were all the rage. Someone would talk about the lack of "bottom end" and that would set em off big time. They would come out of the woodwork to emphasize how the bottom end wasn't no big deal. How they weren't "obsessed" with the bottom end.
And this coming from some of the same guys who were anal-obssesive about getting the bottom end in their audio systems. Talk about hypocrisy.
post #45 of 292
We all know that Black is a pretty important piece to the puzzle among other things. So for anyone to say "not having true black just isn't that big a deal to me", just doesn't get it IMO.

And BTW. The Digital VS. CRT debate will go on and on and on and on and on and on and on......etc! And if it was put to the end, then why are we all still posting here:)
Oh wait I know, so we can keep Darin busy:D........j/k Darin.
post #46 of 292
John,
No it was a 1280 x 720 DLP implementation. As DLP FP goes it was quite an improvement over some of the other much higher end (cost) units that I have seen and setup. I believe they call it the dark chip?? Had very good blacks. I believe it was $15K or so.

Terry
post #47 of 292
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chuchuf
John,
No it was a 1280 x 720 DLP implementation. As DLP FP goes it was quite an improvement over some of the other much higher end (cost) units that I have seen and setup. I believe they call it the dark chip?? Had very good blacks. I believe it was $15K or so.

Terry
So then maybe my guess of about 2 years is on the money??

Cliff
post #48 of 292
Since Darin mentioned price, then I will compare a CRT to the best. I have seen the 30HD albeit on a rear projection screen. It wasn't fully calibrated, but George Walter set it up. Digital does everything else well and in some areas better(like color), but it can't do black. If black is important, then CRT is still king. Would I be able to live with it? Yes, but I am not Art with a $160,000 budget.:D) I remember the first time I watched my top of the line direct view Panasonic ten years ago. I couldn't believe how much of an improvement black made to the picture.

Ericglo
post #49 of 292
Quote:
Originally posted by Art Sonneborn
You would make a good teacher I think. This thread really has been done to the point that I'm surprised that you have the patience to go through all of this again( the good teacher in you I guess:) ).
Maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment. :)
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuChuf
No it was a 1280 x 720 DLP implementation. As DLP FP goes it was quite an improvement over some of the other much higher end (cost) units that I have seen and setup. I believe they call it the dark chip?? Had very good blacks. I believe it was $15K or so.
That would have been the Marantz S4 using the DarkChip3 (DC3). One reason it is so expensive and one thing that sets it apart is that it includes internal Gennum processing. Basically a competitor to Teranex type stuff at the high end. I wish they had included one more mode with higher CR, but it is a nice unit. Other projectors that have the same chip but not the "name" high end internal processing are the SIM2 300E, InFocus 7210, Optoma H79, and Yamaha DPX-1200. The InFocus is $6999 MSRP, but built mostly for people who want or need lots of lumens and really isn't optimized for CRT owners going for blacks. The H79 is available from the AVS guys and is in the same ballpark (but higher MSRP). It takes a compromise approach to lumens vs CR by being reasonably bright with reasonably high CR. The Yamaha DPX-1200 is $12.5k MSRP and pretty protected as far as price and dealers. It takes the approach of having 3 iris choices so that it can be bright when needed and dimmer with much higher CR for movies and things. My personal opinion is that the S4 and DPX-1200 look to currently be the cream of the crop. I would generally choose the high CR choice of the DPX-1200 for myself though.
Quote:
Originally posted by EricGlo
Since Darin mentioned price, then I will compare a CRT to the best. I have seen the 30HD albeit on a rear projection screen.
I wouldn't call a 30HD the best if you are talking about the Studio Experience 30HD (MSRP of $3500). That one has a rating of 2000:1 compared to 4000:1 for the Optoma H79 and 5500:1 on the Yamaha DPX-1200. Ratings aren't everything, but these would be higher and have noticably better blacks, although still room for improvement. Just like my Sharp 11k that probably has at least 2x the CR of the 30HD. If you were talking about some 3 chip DLP that I haven't heard of then I would say that some of these single chippers better the 3 chippers in on/off CR pretty handily.

--Darin
post #50 of 292
I'm tagging along with Art and Darin on this one. Mainly because I'm too lazy to repeat myself over and over again. ;)
post #51 of 292
Darin,
My mistake I meant the Digital Projection 35HD. It has a Darin Ratio of 1200 to 1. It probably trounces digitals in every other area, but without an A/B test I couldn't be positive. Which brings us to the same issue, all projectors have advantages and disadvantages, but CRT still wins the price/performance crown.

As Art asked, why do you bother? Most here are happy with their CRTs and just want verification that they made a good choice. Those that will switch to digital are waiting for the performance to increase to the point that it is a noticeable improvement over what they have.

Ericglo
post #52 of 292
Quote:
Originally posted by Ericglo
but CRT still wins the price/performance crown.
We've been over that one like 100 times. Of course it does if all you count is the images. The market would be one screwed up place otherwise. If somebody took a Qualia, scrawled the F' word all over it with a scratch-all and infused it with with dog cr*p smell so every time you turned it on the room would smell like an outhouse and sold it for $3k it would have better price/performance by this measure. Negatives in things other than the images improve the price/performance if only the images are counted. That is extremely basic economics and logic.
Quote:

As Art asked, why do you bother? Most here are happy with their CRTs and just want verification that they made a good choice. Those that will switch to digital are waiting for the performance to increase to the point that it is a noticeable improvement over what they have.
Some people take my statements of truth as just trying to get people to buy the one they don't like as much. I personally think that shows a bias on their part. All I've done here is state how things are. And yes, when I see things that are wrong or misleading I have a tendency to want to correct them.

--Darin
post #53 of 292
Quote:
Negatives in things other than the images improve the price/performance if only the images are counted. That is extremely basic economics and logic.
:D
post #54 of 292
PQ + "things other than images" / cost

CRT wins PQ.
CRT wins cost.
I'll give "digital" the advantage on your "things other than images" factor (smaller, easy to focus, and it fits in your wife's purse for trips to the lakehouse).

It might not be better, but it costs more so it's gotta be good somehow.

Buy digital... it smells better.
post #55 of 292
Quote:
Originally posted by Clarence
It might not be better, but it costs more so it's gotta be good somehow.
Basically, it costs more and it sells way better, so there must be something there that a portion of the market values. "Better" is of course subjective as proven by the fact that many people are willing to pay more because they consider them better, while others prefer something totally different.

--Darin
post #56 of 292
Quote:
Originally posted by darinp2
Basically, it costs more and it sells way better, so there must be something there
:D
post #57 of 292
Quote:
Originally posted by darinp2

Some people take my statements of truth as just trying to get people to buy the one they don't like as much. I personally think that shows a bias on their part. All I've done here is state how things are. And yes, when I see things that are wrong or misleading I have a tendency to want to correct them.

--Darin
Darin,
I don't follow the digital threads as much as I used to. Which brings me to the following questions. Do you correct things that are wrong or misleading in the digital forum? Do you mention the advantages and disadvantages of CRTs to the digitalites? I guess I have some of the correctionitis as well.:) Maybe I should go back and continue correcting rogo's belief that the growth of home theater is due to the reduction in size of the displays.:)

Also, why can't you tell these manufacturers to come up with some cool names? I know CRTs did it too, but I would love to see some good names on these projectors like Qualia. Hell, I would buy it over a comparable product just tell people I have a "Qualia" instead of a 7205 or whatever. How about the "Michelangelo" the projector that gave life to a two dimensional picture?:D

Ericglo
post #58 of 292
Although as intelligent as Darin obviously is in the video department, (and I have a lot of respect for his knowledge BTW), but i'm starting to think he is a little bit insecure and bias about his purchase's:). I mean first of all, who are you trying to convince? Most people here are just not buying into Digitals, and all the paper specs in the world don't mean jack if the PQ is just not on par to what they're use to seeing. And secondly, it just seems to me that Darin spends A LOT of time lurking over here in CRT land looking for Digital bashings so he can post his opinions/facts. The reason why I call some of it "opinions" is because I have done a lot of reading articles and reviews(which I take with a grain of salt, advertising money you know) on digital FP and 99 times out of 100, the writers say in some way shape or form, that they still have a ways to go yet to surpass the old CRT in over all PQ. Now could it be that all those people(not to mention my own eyes) don't know what they're talking about? I mean whom am I suppose to believe, the very many, or the 1 or 2?

And personally, I could care less what the market(masses) think when it comes to my personal buying. Digital FP's sells well because it's much more geared towards the masses then CRT FP's ever were. They're easier,(not as intimidating) smaller, more marketing, less expensive over all, I mean when did anybody ever see a descent variety of CRT FP's brand new to the market ever sell for $1k. CRT's for the most part were much more expensive to get into even for an entry lever one. And lastly the biggest reason, HT is much more main stream then has ever been and it's still growing.
post #59 of 292
For full fade to black a CRT will crush blacks - yea, but what's your point Darin? I'll take a slight crushing of blacks any day over digital glow and no matter how you calibrate a digital, even if that means crushing blacks until the cows come home, it still won't shut the room down lightwise (you have no way to obtain FFTB with a digital at this time - still waiting for the Eclipse) and the same goes for film - I guess I am a heretic because I don't like film as shown in local movie houses - it simply stinks and I do mean STINKS (at least most of the time) and you have all seen what I am talking about!

I suspect a lot of the directors etc. have CRTs at home and those full fade to black scenes are there for them, if not for anyone else - that's what I'd be doing if I were involved in the film industry.

All the above is coming from someone who really likes digital projectors. I own one (actually four) and love it, but digital needs to make another quantum leap forward before it puts CRT to bed. It's coming, no doubt about it, and I look forward to it. Until then I can do head to head demos of the attributes of both and all the arguments in the world about ANSI CR and full on/off CR mean little when you can see the differences right in front of you - the proof is in the pudding.

If you like a very sharp image (and who doesn't) with good blacks then go digital. If you like the ability to obtain FFTB and a great bottom end with good sharpness then go CRT.

At the end of the day digital is going to win this debate, just a matter of time. There are just too many creative minds working on digital projectors for it to be any other way.

Cheers,

Grant
post #60 of 292
Quote:
Originally posted by Ericglo
I don't follow the digital threads as much as I used to. Which brings me to the following questions. Do you correct things that are wrong or misleading in the digital forum? Do you mention the advantages and disadvantages of CRTs to the digitalites?
When they come up, but the truth is that most people on the digital forums don't care a lot about CRTs. And when they are discussed I think most of the comments are pretty balanced. There are people who will say things that aren't true and I will tend to correct that. And I am famous (or infamous) for taking the position that on/off CR matters, as you know. And this is one area where CRT holds a clear advantage, as we have discussed here. Fortunately, on the digitals forums incorrect information like that on/off CR doesn't matter at all, people can only see 300:1, on/off doesn't matter unless you have black velvet walls and things like that get repeated a lot less often than they used to. I may bring up CRTs more often on the digitals forums than I bring up digitals here. That wouldn't be a lot in either case since if you notice, I don't tend to bring them up a lot here, but mostly respond to what others have said. And since incorrect information about CRTs doesn't seem to run rampant on the digital forums I don't think there is as much to correct.
Quote:
Originally posted by SirJMon
The reason why I call some of it "opinions" is because I have done a lot of reading articles and reviews(which I take with a grain of salt, advertising money you know) on digital FP and 99 times out of 100, the writers say in some way shape or form, that they still have a ways to go yet to surpass the old CRT in over all PQ. Now could it be that all those people(not to mention my own eyes) don't know what they're talking about? I mean whom am I suppose to believe, the very many, or the 1 or 2?
And where did I say even one thing here that disputed that? I think it shows your own bias that you think I disputed this here. I didn't even address it. I addressed some specific imaging parameters and some economic/market things.

In talking about blackouts I said, "The digitals still have a ways to go IMO though" and have also said that it should be obvious to everybody that at the same price the CRTs should have some pretty good advantages to at least part of the market. Yet, people then go off to claim I said things I didn't say (or think I said something I didn't), but I think this just shows their bias in reading things in that aren't there.

On the price/performance thing, the thing that I will continue to find fascinating is how people use this as proof of CRT's superiority. What I find funny about this is that as price goes up price/performance gets worse and also a high price supports that the market values something. In other words, low prices (and thus better price/performance) don't support that a product is superior. Higher prices support that the market thinks a product is superior. If you want to talk about performance then I see two things that are relevant. One would be to compare the actual images (and we do some of that at times), but the second would be to do the opposite of what most people here would do. That would be to say, "Look how high the prices are for CRTs despite their size and lack of copy protected inputs." If anything, that would support the performance superiority argument more than the low price claim.

Of course the relatively low prices are a factor for somebody making a decision and is one reason I will recommend a CRT when I think it makes sense for somebody. As I've pretty much said before, if you care less about the things other than images than the rest of the market then you can personally get a better deal by buying the one that has the weighting in the value toward the images. The same kind of thing goes for cars, jobs, etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by Deja Vu
For full fade to black a CRT will crush blacks - yea, but what's your point Darin? I'll take a slight crushing of blacks any day over digital glow
I have no problem with that. At the end of the day you can calibrate any way you want. I was pointing out that you have chosen to not show some levels as they were meant to be in other images by doing this though. And the issue about CRTs drifting is even another one on top of what we are talking about here, which is even crushing the darkest scenes that aren't quite blackouts. As long as you are okay with that then it isn't a problem, but people should know what they have to do and give up to get that scene you mentioned to blackout.

I'm not a big fan of film at the theaters either. I think we both probably get better images at home than most of the commercial presentations I've been to.
Quote:

that's what I'd be doing if I were involved in the film industry.
If I were encoding these things I would encode those blackouts at something under 16. I don't see any reason not to and it would make it easier to get them right without tradeoffs.
Quote:

Until then I can do head to head demos of the attributes of both and all the arguments in the world about ANSI CR and full on/off CR mean little when you can see the differences right in front of you - the proof is in the pudding.
The proof is in the pudding and it would support what I have said. The digitals still have a ways to go in on/off CR, but some can do blacks very well in the vast majority of mixed scenes. As I've said more than once, a digital like the 11k will have better ANSI CR and a good CRT better on/off CR, but when it comes to overall CR most will find the on/off CR of the digital to be more limiting at this point. I don't think I've ever said otherwise.

--Darin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CRT Projectors
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › CRT Projectors › Putting the Digital VS. CRT debate to an end for GOOD.