Nils Luehrmann
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,513
Dave, Dave, Dave... what am I going to have to do to get through to you... lol
To be fair, we need to consider a 65" RPTV vs. a good FPTV throwing a 65" picture.Isn't this exactly what I said? lol - and the result IS clearly that the RPTV PQ will COMPLETELY outperform any digital FP you want to try and put it up against - I'll bet hard currency on this and will gladly set-up the comparison if you are prepared to discover how much better the PQ from a CRT RPTV is to that of a digital FP.
You yourself said, contrast is everything (although I would not agree with that statement, as there are so many other elements that determine a quality PQ than simply contrast), but that said, LCD, LCOS and DLP projectors (FP or RPTV), are not yet capable of reaching the contrast levels of CRTs and you should know this with your high-end AV industry experience.
I don't blame you on your perception that a 100" picture looks "better" than a 60" picture (given that you are viewing them from the same distance), but it is a perception that does not stand up to true picture quality (color accuracy, contrast, shadow detail, and fill factor). Digital projectors are simply not yet capable of reaching the levels of performance for each of those characteristics and are still plagued with dithering and digital artifacts for which CRTs are not prone to.
It doesn't matter what source you want to feed it, as long as digital projectors lack CRTs levels of color accuracy, contrast, shadow detail, and fill factor, and as long as they continue to show dithering and digital artifacts then the end result will always be an inferior PQ (but you do get a big picture, and as I originally listed, there are many other advantages to digital FPs as well, or else why would I own one - LOL).
It's one thing for you to play Devil's advocate, but I think my original comparisons were actually quite accurate and your statements against RPTVs puzzle me as they stretch the truth beyond reason.
If you want to make the argument that digital FPs and RPTVs vs. their CRT counterparts are better choices for picture size and low maintenance, then you would have no argument, but your statements definitely suggest that the PQ is superior, and that simply is not true. In time I believe digital projection will actually be superior in PQ to that of CRT, but that day is still quite a ways a way.
Now I suspect your interpretation that I was some how RPTV or CRT biased (which I most certainly am not) combined with your obvious enthusiasm over your personal choice of a digital FP resulted in your Devil's Advocate response, but if not, and you still feel that the PQ of your FP (or any digital FP you wish to compare) is better than a CRT RPTV, then I will gladly set-up an A-B comparison for you to discover for yourself the truth.
I should warn you though, once you are pointed out the various PQ flaws in your FP, you will start noticing them each time you use your FP and it may very well distract you from enjoying an otherwise wonderful picture. :frowning:
I use to head Lucasfilms' THX TAP program in Texas and it practically ruined movie watching for me as I became so trained on picking up and focusing in on a film's visual flaws that even when watching movies for fun, I kept getting distracted by a print's quality rather than simply focus on the story and enjoy the film.
The old saying that "Ignorance is Bliss" is well placed in the world of A/V otherwise you could drive yourself crazy (and go broke) trying to attain a perfect A/V system.
Like I said before, HT happiness is only attained by willing to compromise on areas of least importance such that you can have a system that addresses your needs and limitations. I suspect by your enthusiasm that you have done just that, but at the same time I am positive those that chose to go with a CRT RPTV HT system feel just as strongly about their decision.