how can i find the actual resolution of a HD CRT?

Besides counting the lines, I don't know a way.

But consider this - even if you count the lines and discover that it's, for example, 800 horiz by 1080 vert -- that doesn't mean that it will accept a 800x1080 resolution signal from the computer. You have to give it a signal that it can accept. Many HDTVs only accept 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i. They won't just accept any resolution you want to give it.

If the TV is accepts a 720p input, try 1280x720 (that's progressive at 60hz refresh rate). You'll probably notice it's much more legible than 1920x1080i.

If you have a HD DVR box you can record the HDNET test pattern which is 10min long and comes on once a week early in the morning. It has text of different sizes as well as resolution bars for estimating. But measuring dot pitch yourself is easy, just take a ruler and a magnifing glass, measure the number of pixels in an inch, multiply by screen dimensions.

If your primary use for it was to hook it up to your pc why did you pick an interlaced CRT? Something with progressive scan would have made much more sense.

Careful... you're going to open up a whole can of worms if you get me and Wickerman1972 arguing (again) about what is and what isn't truly 1080i...

That depends on the TV, and I don't know much about your TV. The 34" Sony HD tubes actually display 480p as 480p (although they upscale 480i). Someone with a very keen eye might be able to tell just by looking.

...and to Wickerman1972 - I was just playin' in my previous post

CRTS have a Variable Dot Pitch though, so the middle of the image would have a really close dot pitch and the pitch would slowly get bigger as you get to the outter edge of the screen.,

"If the TV is accepts a 720p input, try 1280x720 (that's progressive at 60hz refresh rate). You'll probably notice it's much more legible than 1920x1080i."

Why would that be , when CRTs cannot display 720p X 1280. They all convert it 1080i.

I think it's mainly due to the number of pixels the tube is trying to display, and the size of the text it's trying to display. 1920x1080 (=2,073,600) is more than twice as many pixels as 1280x720 (=921,600), so each pixel is less than half the size.

When I'm using my PC with my 34XBR970, it's difficult to read text (web pages, spreadsheets, etc) when I have the PC output at 1920x1080i. In contrast, at 1280x720p, the same web pages and spreadsheets are siginificantly easier to read. There's virtually no difficulty at all. The text is also much larger (as would be expected at a lower resolution) so I'm sure that has a lot to do with it.

Most 16:9 HD CRTs are 853x1080.

My Panny 34wx54 is 900X1080. My Sony 36xs955 is 1440X1080i. My last Toshiba was 950X1080i. Not sure with our sets that those numbers are not going to be as important as one who has a 60" set. I was looking at a Hitachi 1024X1024 Plasma and against other Plasmas near it that had 1024X768, the PQ did not seem any sharper or better. I think good color saturation and deep blacks are more important in the overall evaluation of the PQ. My Sony has better resolution and I can tell but it doesn't come close to the color saturation and overall clean look of my Panny. No set is perfect. Bigger does not mean better. Most of the very large screens I have seen look very grainy. I was in BB with a friend in the studio area and looked at several 50-60 sets with ESPN HD fed to them and they looked like crap. The projectors with the same feed looked even worse.

How is it that manufacturers can advertise a 1080i display when technically it isn't because 1080i = 1920x1080.

I have serious issues with this, but I dont know.

Since CRT sets are fixed pixels, they have scan rates. That is why they do not advertise both sets of numbers.

Really, where did you get this from? And CRTs are not fixed pixel displays, they are analog devices with masks for their RGB beams.

I believe my Sony 36xs955 is capable of resolving around 1400 vertical lines horizontally. I can't believe yours is much different. I remember someone throwing up an image on a memory stick that checked or displayed that horizontal resolution.

Regarding the vertical I have no real knowledge but would suspect the SONY - like many other HD CRTs, has no problem displaying 540 lines interlaced. But when its on memory stick I am sure it is quite a lot better vertically - That doesn't matter for a native HD signal as the set auto letterboxes - but when you go full screen resolution stays the same (at least to my eyes) so apparently we do get full 1080i vertically even in the letter box. - Point is it is better than 1080i for graphics full screen vertically, how much I don't know.

I meant they are not fixed pixel displays. Lazy finger. Most information that I have found is here on this forum in the various model threads. For our CRT sets no official resolution is given by any manufacturer. I still have not upgraded to a Plasma or LCD set simply because the PQ to my eyes is a step down. I can appreciate a bigger size I just am not ready to go down in PQ for size. By specs, CRT HD sets are not capable of displaying full 1080i(1920X1080). Our Sony comes closest of any CRT set.

Usual and customary test patterns for resolution will immediately tell you whether the TV has or does not have a given resolution.

All of these will affect resolution on a CRT set:

1. Electron beam fatness,
2. Shadow mask dot pitch,
3. Bandwidth of analog circuitry,
4. Pixel count of any digital circuitry.

A set will pass the criterion of displaying X by Y including 1920x1080 if it can display source containing a single white pixel on a black background moving between any two adjacent pixel positions and you can see the little dot moving back and forth.

Thanks for the info. That kind of testing is out of my level of expertise. Those numbers I fould are from fellow membors who probably have tested their sets.

I seen a magazine test one of these last year, the resolution was 850 lines vertical. But, I have seen it do better in tests since.

Agreed! I also have seen that set. I have also seen reviews of the Pioneer Pro-FHD1 which is their plasma that does 1080p. The report stated that they could not see any discernable difference in detail from the 720p sets they also compared them with. I have read that you do not see a difference till you get to 60 inches or greater. On my Sony KDL 36xs955 compared to my Panasonic CT-wx54 I can tell the diffrerence in detail. Maybe it only CRT sets that you can see a difference.

Maybe, because I can see a difference even when I just switch my Toshiba(853x1080)from 720p mode to 1080i mode.

CRTs do not have any set resolution. The resolution attainable on any particular CRT depends on many things, and is not the same among different CRTs even of the same model because it also involves beam setup issues which are display-specific.

1. Use reference images of varying sizes until you find one which doesn't lose any detail. Using special images for this purpose would be ideal, find test patterns similar to what is used to calibrate TVs.

2. Just decrease resolution of the PC input until everything looks pretty crisp and visible. My TV seems to have a resolution of about 1100x600 (philps 9100d), though it's probably even lower as things still aren't crystal clear at that res. 720x480 is perfect, so presumably the actual res falls somewhere in between. On the plus side, whatever resolution my tv can or can't handle looks identical over 50ft of cheap component cable of 12ft of hdmi cable. (oh, my tv also seems to have higher pixel density in the center of the set, as its less blurry than the outsides)

I guess technically the tv tries to resolve 1080 lines, but the screen doesn't seem to get anywhere near that much.

That can't be right. You're Philips has to have at least 720 lines of vertical resolution for it to be legally(?) named an HDTV.

Are you sure? It doesn't look like the cheap Sanyo HDTVs can hit that res either. The philips is more than capable of attempting to output 720 lines, but the screen doesn't seem capable of resolving them.
BTW, I was wrong about 1100x600, it's actually more like 1100x660, so probably 720i with overscan cutting off the edges. Even still, it's not capable of resolving all the detail at this res.