[phillyguy83]

I have three Sony HD CRT televisions, and I love the picture that each one produces. However, I know the day is coming when they'll die. I'm hoping they'll hold out long enough for other technologies to produce a picture that's equivalent to CRT technology, but in the mean time, does anyone know of a TV that comes close? Specifically, I'm looking for a TV that can reproduce the type of motion and black levels that a HD CRT can produce. I hate motion blur and that flat, video-like look that a lot of LCDs produce, so I'm guessing that a plasma is probably my best bet. I don't want a really large TV, either (42" is the max I'd want), because I watch a lot of SD content and would like to find a TV that produces a quality image for regular DVDs like the CRT does, and it seems that the larger the television goes, the worse the SD picture gets.


Any help would be much appreciated.

 

[pcdo]

Probably the 42UT50 if you can still find it. It had a limited production run.

 

[Mik James]

Panasonic has some "industrial" models on their site as well, some are 1080p 42".

Samsungs pn43d450, pn43e450, and Panasonics tcp42x3, tcp42x5 are all budget models that do well with dim room contrast but are average overall. Lg's tend to excel in areas other than contrast and black level so you might want to stick with the other companies unless they have gotten better this year. Unfortunately you would have to go back a few years to find a full 720p 42" panel (1366x768) even the 50" 720p panels this year are 1024x768 (rectangular pixels).

A lower res panel might look better for sd content but I think you would lose that benefit with the odd resolution of 1024x768.

 

[RandyWalters]

Since Plasma TVs are phosphor-based, they are much more CRT-like than any LCD TV or LED LCD TV. Unfortunately there are no more good Plasmas in the under-50" size range this year (the good ones start at 50").


Sears recently bought up the last remaining 1080p Panasonic TC-P42UT50 plasmas (which were discontinued for lack of interest among retailers), but these are scarce. All the other 42" Panasonic and Samsung plasmas are 768p and don't perform as well as the UT50 series. If your existing Tube TVs are SD (not HD) then the 768p units will still look better than the Tubes. All of the 42" Plasmas on the market have reflective screens but the Tube TVs have about the same reflectivity so that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Mik James]

 http://www.panasonic.com/business/plasma/index.asp

I think they use the same or very similar panels but I'm not sure what hoops you'd have to jump through to buy one. I saw one on Amazon awhile back.

Most of the 42" panels on there are 1080p, the only 720p panel has the same 1024x768 res as most consumer models.

 

[walford]

The yield of zero defect plasma panels decreases as the pixel density increases and therefore the smaller screen the higher the cost for a given resolution. I am not surprised that commercial smaller displays may be available for a higher price since the component cost is higher due to the low yield and higher quality components for better reliability.

 

[Chronoptimist]



Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWalters  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt/0_100#post_22211953


Since Plasma TVs are phosphor-based, they are much more CRT-like than any LCD TV or LED LCD TV. Unfortunately there are no more good Plasmas in the under-50" size range this year (the good ones start at 50").

If we are going by "uses phosphors" to mean "CRT-like" then LCDs are CRT-like as well, seeing as they use phosphor-coated LEDs/CCFL tubes.


While Plasmas are emissive displays and don't have the viewing angle issues of LCDs as a result, that's about it as far as similarities go. The image they put out is very different from a CRT display.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyguy83  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt/0_100#post_22208080


I have three Sony HD CRT televisions, and I love the picture that each one produces. However, I know the day is coming when they'll die.

Wait until they actually do. Flat panels are better in some regards, but nothing is as good overall as a well maintained and calibrated CRT in my opinion.


The only thing a Plasma does better than a CRT is resolution. Everything else is worse. (contrast, motion handling, viewing angle etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyguy83  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt/0_100#post_22208080


Specifically, I'm looking for a TV that can reproduce the type of motion and black levels that a HD CRT can produce. I hate motion blur and that flat, video-like look that a lot of LCDs produce, so I'm guessing that a plasma is probably my best bet.

Plasmas cannot match a CRT when it comes to black level. Local-dimming LED-backlit LCDs can. The flat looking image on many LCDs is simply caused by their poor contrast ratio (inability to create good black levels) and the matte surface that was popular a while back. An LCD with a bonded glass front like Sony's HX909/929 has just as much depth to the image as any CRT. The video look is an image processing option that can be turned off. I'm not recommending that you go out and buy an LCD, but just because some (OK, the majority) look bad doesn't mean that they all do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyguy83  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt/0_100#post_22208080


I don't want a really large TV, either (42" is the max I'd want), because I watch a lot of SD content and would like to find a TV that produces a quality image for regular DVDs like the CRT does, and it seems that the larger the television goes, the worse the SD picture gets.

The size difference between 42ʺ and 46ʺ is not so great that it will have a significant effect on the quality of SD content, however if 1080p plasmas are no longer available at 42ʺ, buying a 46ʺ 1080p display will be significantly better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt/0_100#post_22208769


A lower res panel might look better for sd content but I think you would lose that benefit with the odd resolution of 1024x768.

With the exception of a CRT which can actually scan at the resolution of the source material, you always want as high a resolution display as possible, regardless of the source resolution.


While it's not 1024x768 vs 1920x1080, here's an iPad 2 (1024x768) and iPad 3 (2048x1536) comparison that illustrates it very well.

As you can see, while the source resolution is identical, the image is significantly better on the iPad 3 display due to the increase in resolution.

 

[Mik James]

Some age old arguments on that list

In this case CRT like appears to mean deep blacks for good contrast ratios, a softer image, and indeed better motion resolution at a reasonable price.


Static contrast is actually far better on a plasma, with quite a few Plasmas matching the dynamic contrast of crt's as well.


Viewing angles shouldn't be noticeably better on a CRT, both are near perfect.


Motion performance hasn't been much better on a CRT in my opinion, my CRT rear pro has quite a bit of phosphor lag similar to a plasma.

Flicker is also quite annoying to some people as is the idea that their tv could blow up in their face if dropped while moving

A panel with a resolution that closer matches the source content can look better depending on how accurately it is scaled.

The reason I recommend a 1080p panel over a 1024x768 panel is due to the way the image has to be scaled over rectangular pixels,

A good 1366x768 panel may very well look better with sd content, you can see in the picture you linked of the iPads that the first image does look blocker but the second image looks blurrier it's in the eye of the beholder

 

[Chronoptimist]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt/0_100#post_22215062


In this case CRT like appears to mean deep blacks for good contrast ratios, a softer image, and indeed better motion resolution at a reasonable price.

Static contrast is actually far better on a plasma, with quite a few Plasmas matching the dynamic contrast of crt's as well.

No plasma comes close to the black level of the best CRTs in a dark room. (yes, even the KRPs) Simultaneous contrast is significantly less important to image quality. A CRT might have a dynamic range in excess of 20,000:1 and a simultaneous contrast ratio of less than 200:1, as an example of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt/0_100#post_22215062


Motion performance hasn't been much better on a CRT in my opinion, my CRT rear pro has quite a bit of phosphor lag similar to a plasma.

More than just "phosphor lag" there is color break-up (similar to DLPs) and motion is generally softer than CRTs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt/0_100#post_22215062


Flicker is also quite annoying to some people as is the idea that their tv could blow up in their face if dropped while moving

You say this as if Plasmas don't also flicker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt/0_100#post_22215062


A panel with a resolution that closer matches the source content can look better depending on how accurately it is scaled.

This is absolutely wrong. As soon as you are scaling at non-integer values, you want the highest resolution possible. Standard definition content does not use square pixels anyway, so the fact that a panel is 1024x768 is not the problem. An ideal display for SD content would actually be 1440x960 or higher (such as 2160x1440) in a 16:9 aspect ratio using non-square pixels.


Only scaling to 1366x768 is considerably worse than scaling to 1920x1080 for example. You want at least two pixels for every source pixel when upscaling, and ideally exactly 2x or 3x etc.


For 480p (720x480)


1366 = 1.9x

768 = 1.6x


1920 = 2.7x

1080 = 2.3x

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik James  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt/0_100#post_22215062


A good 1366x768 panel may very well look better with sd content, you can see in the picture you linked of the iPads that the first image does look blocker but the second image looks blurrier it's in the eye of the beholder

This is a false perception of sharpness created by the grid overlaying the image. Sharpness on the displays is identical because they are fixed-pixel devices. Clarity is significantly improved on the iPad 3 display though. If there's any difference in sharpness with that example, it's because they are photos. It also looks like the iPad 2 photo is brighter exposed, which could also create that impression.

 

[sonyfan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyguy83  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt#post_22208080


I have three Sony HD CRT televisions, and I love the picture that each one produces. However, I know the day is coming when they'll die. I'm hoping they'll hold out long enough for other technologies to produce a picture that's equivalent to CRT technology, but in the mean time, does anyone know of a TV that comes close? Specifically, I'm looking for a TV that can reproduce the type of motion and black levels that a HD CRT can produce. I hate motion blur and that flat, video-like look that a lot of LCDs produce, so I'm guessing that a plasma is probably my best bet. I don't want a really large TV, either (42" is the max I'd want), because I watch a lot of SD content and would like to find a TV that produces a quality image for regular DVDs like the CRT does, and it seems that the larger the television goes, the worse the SD picture gets.

Any help would be much appreciated.

I have a 3 week old Samsung 43" PN43E450 that replaced a Sony 36XBR800

with 6 red light blinks.

Shure it only cost aprox $15 in parts to fix but it was time to move on

plus I was very tired of having to switch from HD to SD all the time.

HD was 33" at the most so the jump up to 43" is fantastic.

I don't miss anything from the Sony execpt:

Perfect motion

Large black bezel


I highly recomend the 43" PN43E450 for anyone who has to make the switch.

You get perfect geometry, no scan lines, screen fit modes

that works wonders for SD, DVD-R's, AVI files, etc.

Blacks are better and in general a better pixcture with

options to calibrate from the user menu.

 

[Mik James]

I didn't want to imply that a plasma can show as deep a black as a crt, when i say dynamic contrast i mean overall range (Plasmas get brighter and nearly as dark as a crt) Static contrast is extremely important to me, the added detail in a high contrast scene on a plasma is readily noticeable. Yes the kuro's do come close to the black level of a crt in a dark room, the first generation measured 0.03 candelas with the next generation measuring 5X times deeper blacks than that, the static contrast on a crt prevents it from showing anything close to that on a high contrast scene.


Color break-up is a new term for me, thanks for bringing it to my attention so i can read up on it, having owned a Panasonic plasma and a crt i can definetly say that i see no difference in the response time and i'd wager that very few can see the difference especially on a higher end plasma.


Last i checked the majority of people don't have a problem with flicker on plasma like they did on crt's. Plasmas have subfield drive tech specifically put in place to combat flickering.


I'm not really a math guy so i can't comment to much on the scaling numbers, but I kinda get what your saying there

Can you put it a little more laymanly for me

 

[sonyfan]

My Samsung 43" PN43E450 that replaced a Sony 36XBR800

does have deeper blacks than the Sony no doubt about it.

It must have somthing to do with this years 'Real Black Filter'

and Clear Image panel for the e450, e530, e550.

It's ability to ward off reflections blows the Sony out the water.

 

[Mik James]

That's another great case for a plasma, even an older 2008 Panasonic that i had does way better in a brighter room than a crt.

I was considering the d450 myself but i decided to pass because i had the chance to get a free crt rear projection.

The crt rear pro has horrible static contrast, yes it is a rear pro and a direct view will do better but even the crt monitor i had before it could only do so good on a high contrast scene in comparison to a good plasma. There is just no reason to keep a crt anymore (unless your as cheap as me) the new tech had to get close to crt in every aspect of picture quality eventually and i think that already occured with the Kuro and is now the norm for budget plasmas like the u50 (i've seen those selling as low as 650$ and they measure somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02 cd)

Even the budget d450 I was considering measures 0.03 and they can be had used for 400

 

[saprano]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt#post_22214707


If we are going by "uses phosphors" to mean "CRT-like" then LCDs are CRT-like as well, seeing as they use phosphor-coated LEDs/CCFL tubes.

While Plasmas are emissive displays and don't have the viewing angle issues of LCDs as a result, that's about it as far as similarities go. The image they put out is very different from a CRT display.

Wait until they actually do. Flat panels are better in some regards, but nothing is as good overall as a well maintained and calibrated CRT in my opinion.

The only thing a Plasma does better than a CRT is resolution. Everything else is worse. (contrast, motion handling, viewing angle etc.)

Plasmas cannot match a CRT when it comes to black level. Local-dimming LED-backlit LCDs can. The flat looking image on many LCDs is simply caused by their poor contrast ratio (inability to create good black levels) and the matte surface that was popular a while back. An LCD with a bonded glass front like Sony's HX909/929 has just as much depth to the image as any CRT. The video look is an image processing option that can be turned off. I'm not recommending that you go out and buy an LCD, but just because some (OK, the majority) look bad doesn't mean that they all do.

The size difference between 42ʺ and 46ʺ is not so great that it will have a significant effect on the quality of SD content, however if 1080p plasmas are no longer available at 42ʺ, buying a 46ʺ 1080p display will be significantly better.

With the exception of a CRT which can actually scan at the resolution of the source material, you always want as high a resolution display as possible, regardless of the source resolution.

While it's not 1024x768 vs 1920x1080, here's an iPad 2 (1024x768) and iPad 3 (2048x1536) comparison that illustrates it very well.

As you can see, while the source resolution is identical, the image is significantly better on the iPad 3 display due to the increase in resolution.

The kuros were the closest to a CRT. Contrast and everything.

 

[Mik James]

and they kicked crt's in most other areas

 

[qwknuf6]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/1419725/what-flat-panel-looks-closest-to-a-crt#post_22216185


No plasma comes close to the black level of the best CRTs in a dark room. (yes, even the KRPs) .

What MLL are the CRTs , are they lower than .0005 of a Pioneer 101 , D -Nice has tuned his Pioneer 101 and 500M to a MLL of .0001 to .0003 , The Pioneer 9Gs and 9.5Gs do vary in MLL from unit to unit ,my Pioneer 151 some measures .0014 MLL , (I have owned 6 diff Pioneer 9g and 9.5s ) but my 101 is very dark in a light controlled room , black walls and ceiling, no outside light at all , .To say that no plasma COMES CLOSE would mean there is no light emited at all from a crt .


Thanks


Mark

 

[glangford]

One note, I don't see the OP's size TVs. I had a 36" Sony CRT. When I went with a flat panel, I did the calculations to determine that a 36" 4x3 signal needs a 46" flat panel to have the same size 4x3 image (black bars on the sides). So if your TV is 36" you'll want a 46" flat panel 16x9 to have the same 4x3 image size.


Given your requirement to watch alot of SD content, I'd go with an LCD, or you'll end up watching 4x3 stretched to 16x9 on a plasma.

 

[Mik James]

Crt's can't show true black while showing any amount of light on the screen. Crt's when measured on a black screen drop below what meters can measure because it is the absence of light but as soon as you get even little bit of luminance in the scene the mll of a CRT jumps considerably when compared to a kuro.

 

[qwknuf6]

So a GOOD 101 or 500M kuro would blow away a crt in real world contrast ?

 

[Mik James]

Yes, crt's are the worst when it comes to holding black while there is light on the screen, it might surprise you to know that lcds actually perform the best in that area, they are able to hold close to their mll at the ridiculous brightness levels they can achieve.