Just thought some might be interested to know my following observations (subjective of course)...
Background: I am a long time CRT front projection owner (I currently own a NEC XG1352), who added an InFocus X1 about 2 years ago as a RPTV replacement for my 4:3 TV viewing. Note that I have also side-by-side compared LCD and have ruled this out due to panel convergence, lack of black level, and most significantly FPN issues. I have recently upgraded my X1 to an NEC HT1100 DLP. So I now have NEC big brother CRT and little brother DLP hanging from my ceiling!
The night before last I watched "Vertical Limit" 1080i D-VHS on my new HT1100 DLP, and was extremely happy with the nice sharp image, black detail, and colours etc. (noticably sharper than my DVD version on the HT1100). I only watched this movie on the HT1100 as I was using the HTPC for DVD writing, so I thought I would watch a movie via JVC D-VHS 1080i component connection to the HT1100. I also watched "Nature in Motion" 1080i D-VHS to see how that looked on the HT1100 (that looked really good too!). NB: My zoomed up 16:9 HT1100 image is around 96" diag I believe.
This made me think that if I hadn't purchased my XG1352 CRT projector 18 months ago, I probably would have been more than happy with a good high CR 720p DLP these days for all of my viewing needs (eg: like the Sharp 12K, or the new Optoma H77), which would give me even more resolution for HD than the HT1100 does (ie: an even sharper and more detailed image that the HT1100). With the added bonus of perfect convergence ALL the time!
Then, last night I watched "The Passion of the Christ" D-Theater on the XG1352 CRT, and thoroughly enjoyed the image on my 119" full 16:9 screen size (aside from wanting to tweak the convergence at the begining and midway through the movie - just cause I can on the CRT, and it had slipped half a pixel.
For a comparison, I then rewound the tape a bit and played some of the movie again, on the HT1100 DLP. Although on it's own merits, the DLP image was nice and sharp, and certainly very watchable, this little exercise did remind me of the benefits of CRT.
After viewing the movie on the CRT, then viewing on the HT1100, the DLP image was by comparison a little less detailed (as of course expected due to only 1024x576 16:9 resolution), but also significantly less pleasing on the eye.
It is hard to describe this, other than to say that the image appeared harsher on the eye than the CRT (although the colours were indeed very good), and there was also a *very* noticable difference in the sharpness of objects during motion (eg: when peoples faces moved).
On the DLP it appeared that when there was motion, the moving image was significantly softer than when viewing on the CRT. On the DLP, static (still) images are very sharp, but images in motion become visually very soft and blurry (relative to the CRT), and therefore are more distracting to watch.
On the CRT the HD sharpness is very good (better than the HT1100 due to it's resolution, but maybe? not quite as good perhaps as on a 720p DLP).
But, the sharpness on the CRT is combined with a CRT smoothness of image that takes away any harsh edges etc.
However, the real improvement on the CRT was the significantly improved sharpness and smoothness of images in motion. eg: Most noticable was the sharpness and smoothness of peoples faces as they moved on the CRT, compared to on the DLP going from nice and sharp while still, to soft and a little blurry as they moved. I think this was a big contributer to making the DLP a more harsher viewing experience.
The bottom line...
For anyone (even with a good CRT), the latest higher CR DLP's offer a nice, sharp, and detailed image, which really would please pretty much any viewer (as I noted from my Wednesday night viewing experience, and I'm a long time CRT guy!).
However, when directly compared with a good higher end CRT, digital DLP display technology is still lacking in it's ability to produce an image as smooth (particularly in it's rendition of motion), and therefore as visually pleasing as a good CRT.
Damn... looks like I'll still be converging and tweaking these CRT monsters for a little while yet!
PS: I'm still extremely happy with my HT1100 purchase for it's intended purpose of 4:3 aspect TV and DVD viewing, and occasional widescreen viewing (it's certainly produces a very nice image and is a good logical upgrade from the X1 for my purposes!), but the XG1352 CRT remains as my much prefered viewing experience for HD content and general widescreen movie viewing.
Greg
Background: I am a long time CRT front projection owner (I currently own a NEC XG1352), who added an InFocus X1 about 2 years ago as a RPTV replacement for my 4:3 TV viewing. Note that I have also side-by-side compared LCD and have ruled this out due to panel convergence, lack of black level, and most significantly FPN issues. I have recently upgraded my X1 to an NEC HT1100 DLP. So I now have NEC big brother CRT and little brother DLP hanging from my ceiling!
The night before last I watched "Vertical Limit" 1080i D-VHS on my new HT1100 DLP, and was extremely happy with the nice sharp image, black detail, and colours etc. (noticably sharper than my DVD version on the HT1100). I only watched this movie on the HT1100 as I was using the HTPC for DVD writing, so I thought I would watch a movie via JVC D-VHS 1080i component connection to the HT1100. I also watched "Nature in Motion" 1080i D-VHS to see how that looked on the HT1100 (that looked really good too!). NB: My zoomed up 16:9 HT1100 image is around 96" diag I believe.
This made me think that if I hadn't purchased my XG1352 CRT projector 18 months ago, I probably would have been more than happy with a good high CR 720p DLP these days for all of my viewing needs (eg: like the Sharp 12K, or the new Optoma H77), which would give me even more resolution for HD than the HT1100 does (ie: an even sharper and more detailed image that the HT1100). With the added bonus of perfect convergence ALL the time!
Then, last night I watched "The Passion of the Christ" D-Theater on the XG1352 CRT, and thoroughly enjoyed the image on my 119" full 16:9 screen size (aside from wanting to tweak the convergence at the begining and midway through the movie - just cause I can on the CRT, and it had slipped half a pixel
.For a comparison, I then rewound the tape a bit and played some of the movie again, on the HT1100 DLP. Although on it's own merits, the DLP image was nice and sharp, and certainly very watchable, this little exercise did remind me of the benefits of CRT.
After viewing the movie on the CRT, then viewing on the HT1100, the DLP image was by comparison a little less detailed (as of course expected due to only 1024x576 16:9 resolution), but also significantly less pleasing on the eye.
It is hard to describe this, other than to say that the image appeared harsher on the eye than the CRT (although the colours were indeed very good), and there was also a *very* noticable difference in the sharpness of objects during motion (eg: when peoples faces moved).
On the DLP it appeared that when there was motion, the moving image was significantly softer than when viewing on the CRT. On the DLP, static (still) images are very sharp, but images in motion become visually very soft and blurry (relative to the CRT), and therefore are more distracting to watch.
On the CRT the HD sharpness is very good (better than the HT1100 due to it's resolution, but maybe? not quite as good perhaps as on a 720p DLP).
But, the sharpness on the CRT is combined with a CRT smoothness of image that takes away any harsh edges etc.
However, the real improvement on the CRT was the significantly improved sharpness and smoothness of images in motion. eg: Most noticable was the sharpness and smoothness of peoples faces as they moved on the CRT, compared to on the DLP going from nice and sharp while still, to soft and a little blurry as they moved. I think this was a big contributer to making the DLP a more harsher viewing experience.
The bottom line...
For anyone (even with a good CRT), the latest higher CR DLP's offer a nice, sharp, and detailed image, which really would please pretty much any viewer (as I noted from my Wednesday night viewing experience, and I'm a long time CRT guy!).
However, when directly compared with a good higher end CRT, digital DLP display technology is still lacking in it's ability to produce an image as smooth (particularly in it's rendition of motion), and therefore as visually pleasing as a good CRT.
Damn... looks like I'll still be converging and tweaking these CRT monsters for a little while yet!
PS: I'm still extremely happy with my HT1100 purchase for it's intended purpose of 4:3 aspect TV and DVD viewing, and occasional widescreen viewing (it's certainly produces a very nice image and is a good logical upgrade from the X1 for my purposes!), but the XG1352 CRT remains as my much prefered viewing experience for HD content and general widescreen movie viewing.
Greg
