[tsunami2311]

I have question on them... do they truely do 720p/1080i meaning do they really have the pixel lines to do those resoultions. Cause I think of bring back my Ln-s3251d for CRT HDTV cause the responce times still are crap on LCD's and the space I save is not worth the Lag times LCD have


maybe a samsung 30"slim fit or the sony 34" hdtv even though 34" is really pushing it a 10x10 room which was the whole reason why i wanted a lcd


and none of these crt hdtv come with vga port for pc do they

 

[Wickerman1972]

No, they don't. Most of them are in the range of 800-900 X 1080 resolution. When you do the math that comes up to about the same amount of pixels as 720p but it is interlaced. So strangely enough I think you could kinda' call them 720i. Past Sony models with the Super Fine Pitch Tube had 1440 X 1080 resolution or something like that but those aren't made anymore. But because of the small screens and the vastly superior contrast of CRTs that 720i picture looks much better than you might think.

 

[tsunami2311]

so none of the crt tvs are truely 720p/1080i..... I would think it at least 720p seeing computer moniters have no problem do that resoultion

 

[RWetmore]

On most the resolution is probably even less than 1280x720.

 

[JayPSU]



Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore /forum/post/0


On most the resolution is probably even less than 1280x720.

So do LCD's have a better looking HD picture than CRT's?

 

[Wickerman1972]



Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPSU /forum/post/0


So do LCD's have a better looking HD picture than CRT's?

It isn't all about resolution. I have a Sony 34XBR970 CRT and its true resolution is 853 X 1080 interlaced. I've looked at 768p LCD HDTVs and I think mine looks better. Now, I guess that if you buy a top-of-the-line flat panel for thousands that it might look as good or better ( But even then I'm not sure. ), especially if it is 1080p but with the LCDs under a grand I definately believe my CRT has better picture quality. The reason is because of the off-the-scale contrast ratios of CRTS. A lot of a flat-panel's resolution advantages are compromised by their low CR, resulting in poor shading and whatnot. It doesn't seem like it would make as big a difference as it does but it certainly does. However, I'm sure that eventually flat-panels will catch up in contrast and when that happens there will be absolutely no viable reason to pick a CRT.

 

[JayPSU]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman1972 /forum/post/0


It isn't all about resolution. I have a Sony 34XBR970 CRT and its true resolution is 853 X 1080 interlaced. I've looked at 768p LCD HDTVs and I think mine looks better. Now, I guess that if you buy a top-of-the-line flat panel for thousands that it might look as good or better ( But even then I'm not sure. ), especially if it is 1080p but with the LCDs under a grand I definately believe my CRT has better picture quality. The reason is because of the off-the-scale contrast ratios of CRTS. A lot of a flat-panel's resolution advantages are compromised by their low CR, resulting in poor shading and whatnot. It doesn't seem like it would make as big a difference as it does but it certainly does. However, I'm sure that eventually flat-panels will catch up in contrast and when that happens there will be absolutely no viable reason to pick a CRT.

For me, the problem I'm having with my HD LCD (an Olevia 232V) is mainly with its SD picture quality. I have a 32" Sony SD television and its SD picture quality BLOWS AWAY my LCD's SD picture. Since most content is still in SD, it's frustrating for me. That's why I'm considering selling the LCD and buying the XBR970, or a 960 if I can somehow find one new.

 

[Wickerman1972]

The SD on the XBR970 looks very good and I'm suspecting that you'll find that the HD picture looks better than your LCD as well. The problem with LCD is that although it has that extra resolution the extra detail is washed out by its terrible contrast abilities.

 

[boostfrenzy]

i'm thinking about trying a xbr970 as well, i've had 5 different lcd sets from 768p to 1080p with quality sources and i just can't stand the overall quality of hte image, resolution or not... hopefully i'd like one of these as i don't really need bigger than 32-37" anyway

 

[tsunami2311]

what about the lg crt hdtv they claim there 1080i native resolutions

 

[Mathesar]

At this point a CRT's main advantage is still black levels and probably 480i/p quality since they dont have to scale like a fixed pixel display. I hooked up my Nintendo Wii to my NEC 20WMGX2 LCD and was shocked at how bad it looked (Component input / 480P mode), it looks far better on my Sony XBR960 CRT using the same cables, Xbox 360 on the other hand looked very good on the LCD with no visible 'scaling' issues @ 720P.


But good black levels are an essential part of picture quality and the main reason I still prefer CRT over anything else.

 

[tsunami2311]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathesar /forum/post/0


At this point a CRT's main advantage is still black levels and probably 480i/p quality since they dont have to scale like a fixed pixel display. I hooked up my Nintendo Wii to my NEC 20WMGX2 LCD and was shocked at how bad it looked (Component input / 480P mode), it looks far better on my Sony XBR960 CRT using the same cables, Xbox 360 on the other hand looked very good on the LCD with no visible 'scaling' issues @ 720P.


But good black levels are an essential part of picture quality and the main reason I still prefer CRT over anything else.

I do to which is my computer moniter is still a CRT and not lcd... but I have very little room to deal with in my room an which is why i want to get LCD for me the SED (1ms reponse faster then crt's from what i read and blacks blacker then crt's according to the previews) technolgy was what i wanted to get but it could be years before it is out and it 32" and resonable prices

 

[pulse333]

I recently switched from a Panny 26" HD CRT to an Olevia 26" LCD because I wanted higher resolution for my Xbox 360. While the 360 does look much more detailed, I did notice that the detail on my HD channels has not improved much because it was never there in the first place (thanks to HD lite). So for HD TV channels, the difference in resolution between the sets for me is not noticeable most of the time, but for gaming it makes a big difference. PQ overall is only slightly less on the LCD to my eye, the tradeoff for resolution is worth it for me. The Panny has a resolution of ~ 900 x 540 when measuring phosphor dots.

 

[lastxbr960]



Quote:
Originally Posted by tsunami2311 /forum/post/0


I do to which is my computer moniter is still a CRT and not lcd... but I have very little room to deal with in my room an which is why i want to get LCD for me the SED (1ms reponse faster then crt's from what i read and blacks blacker then crt's according to the previews) technolgy was what i wanted to get but it could be years before it is out and it 32" and resonable prices

I believe CRT's are in the nano second area, so they dont list it, as far as response time goes, far faster than SED-Plasma- or LCD, it is very rare that you will ever see a crt lag, even one from the 50's.

Contrast is close to unlimited so they dont list that either. those along with Black level and color accuracy are some of the quality CRT advantages over the other techs and why I chose it.

If one was available I would pick up another XBR960 in a heartbeat, but Sony cancelled those so as to not embarass thier LCD line and also they are much cheaper to make with lots more profitSSS.