4-year-old CRT RPTV Better PIC than DLP/LCos/LCD? (1 Viewer)

[Greg Patterson]

Chris,
I didnt buy my DLP because it is thinner or less heavy or a cool factor. I bought it because of image quality and practicality. I did not think that my criticisms of CRT were exagerations. It is not an exageration to say that as you move off center of a CRT the picture degrades. Much more so than other tech. On the other hand I have never met anyone who has experienced rainbows looking at a DLP. Not to say that no one ever has, but it is only a small minority of people. However, 100% of people will notice the degrading quality of a CRTs picture as they move off center.
By the way, for the sake of argument I am only referring to RPTV not FP. I also am not totaly sold on Plasma tech either and am aware that they use phosphors and therefore can burn.
When I mentioned the screen size of CRTs I was referring to how hard it is for that technology to light the whole screen evenly. The bigger a CRT screen is, the less bright it is, particularly towards the edges. This effects picture quality.
I just want to make a few points so as to keep this as short as possible. So I wont address everything you said in your post. However,I will agree that there are strenths and weaknesses with all technology. I chose DLP after carefully balancing all of the strengths and weaknesses. So far I am satisfied with the technology but am also aware of the weaknesses. People who own CRTs have done the same and have sacrificed the picture quality of real film over the practicality of video on a rear projection CRT.
Also I am not very good at writing so I hope I am not comming off as defensive or snotty. If I am I dont mean to be. I am just trying to debate.

 

[Kirk Patrick]

greg, i agree with you about some of the drawbacks of crt which is why regretfully i don't own one, they are large, not as bright, are susceptible to burn-in, can have an uneven image among others

but...one thing they do not do is sacrifice the picture quality of real film

that is their very real strength in my opinion, no other technology that i have seen to date can produce the kind of "film like" image of the crt...they are flat out spectacular for making dvd's look like "the movies"

so i agree on other counts but not on this one

 

[Reginald Trent]

Quote:

Reginald: CRT technology has been around about 75 years so is very mature. So four years doesn't mean much. And especially, despite what so many marketing people want us to believe, everything that is new is NOT the best. Extreme example: sound-wise, my $240 Technics/Shure turntable/cartridge combination-REALLY old tech-can beat the crap out of a 160kbps MP3, despite the MP3 being part of a much newer technology.

IMO many corporations have become quite unscrupulous in their single-minded quest for profits, so I have gotten into the habit of being quite skeptical of new technologies until I see (or hear) for myself if they truly have useful advantages over the old stuff.

The Corporation
-----------------------------

LanceJ,

I am referring to 4 years of use not the technology as you seem to think. Also most HD displays are widescreen not 4x3 therefore giving the widescreen an advantage when displaying anamorphic DVDs enhanced for 16:9 displays. So I'll ask if JoseAR's 4x3 is a HD?

BTW I own a 3year old 55" Mits CRT and a new 52" Tosh DLP. Both displays a perfectly acceptable picture; however, I prefer the clarity of the Tosh over the Mits. I should also mention that I don't like a soft image that lacks detail.

 

[joseAR]

My Toshiba is a 55-inch HDTV-ready model with Colorstream technology connected to a Pioneer progressive scan DVD player via component video connectors (Monster Cable).

 

[James Edward]

Hi, My name is Jim, and I love my CRT RPTV.

As an A/V enthusiast, I am willing to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure a fabulous picture- a room with low ambient light, and no 160 degree viewing angles. Couple that with a huge set(65") taking up considerable space in my den, and I can see why people are moving to newer technologies. However, convergence is not nearly as much of an issue as some make it out to be.

Having said that, this is the Home Theater Forum ,
and as such, we should still be striving for a display that replicates a theater image, not what's best for video games, brightly lit rooms, and static images that won't burn in.

I am lucky enough to have a separate room for my HT, where light can be easily controlled, and a CRT RPTV did not have to be lugged up several flights of stairs. So I can see why the thinner, lighter technologies are winning out, but for picture quality alone, no way.

I currently own a Mits WS-65815, and spend my days doing A/V installs, and my bottom line is this- most people are better off with one of the newer technologies- plasma, DLP, or LCD. They watch stretched 4x3 TV, have no clue or interest in how to watch something in its correct aspect, and generally just think bigger and brighter is better. This is after explaining and demonstrating proper usage.
Invariably, if I go back to a home to add a piece of equipment, or do a service call, the image is stretched, zoomed, or otherwise degraded. I always leave with the TV set to something other than 'torch' mode. It is inevitably back to 'VIVID' if I come back at a later date.

To sum up- if I were recommending a TV to most people, I'd have them go with an LCD RP from Sony. But for a person that watches movies most of the time, and has the appropriate room, I'd recommend a CRT RP, and use the money saved for an ISF calibration.

Thank you. That was better than therapy...

 

[LanceJ]

Jim: that was a good post!

As a music fan, in my experience you're story also fits with a lot of music playback systems: treble & bass set at "10", speakers behind potted plants, all of which playing CD-Rs made from 96kbps MP3s.....and the owner thinks its sounds "kick ass". I'm not trying to sound like an audiophile snob by saying that, but I truly believe most people don't know what live instruments actually sound like, so they think sizzling/plinking high frequencies and boomy/hollow bass is a good thing. :frowning:

BTW: I remember the first time I used one of those THX optimizer gizmos (on my Attack Of The Clones dvd) to adjust my TV (just a 27" CRT). Wow, what a positive difference that made! The image did get a bit washed out with all the blinds open during the day but that's not when I usually watch movies anyway; and the TV has a memory for one user-chosen set of settings and a preset "standard" mode so I can just pick one of these for whatever time of the day I'm watching.

 

[John S]

I just knew that thread was going to turn into a technology -vs- technology pissing thread.


For one poster it was DLP, for some LCD, for some still CRT Projection. I sure love my 60" CRT RP and I have some off axis seating that show detectable degrading of the video.


The original poster mentioned black levels in particular. certainly we have to conceed that point to CRT technology.


But I respect CRT RP, Good DLP even though it is not yet for me personally, LCD, and Plasma all as viable choices for anybody in particular.


I can nail several negative things about any technology. CRT RP still has the most of what I like best, and CRT FP is still off the charts good compared to anything else out there in my opinion.

All the high end digital FP guys I know personally still conceed that as well.

We are all both blessed and cursed to some degree that we have all these technologies to choose from.

 

[Brian Bowles]

Greg Patterson,

I have a Toshiba 65hdx82. If you know a dlp or a lcd that rivals it is picture quality please let me know so I can go look at one. I probably would buy a DLP today because there is less problems in the future. Although the color wheel just went out on my friend's samsung..... Every dlp I have seen looks more pixelated and the image brakes up with fast moving objects. It is almost like the response time of the pixels are too slow. Besides there are few dlp sets that do 1080i. The ones that do are so expensive that I could afford to buy a crt rptv and afford to have it worked on several times and calibrated by a ISF guy.