Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Dan_R_M, Jan 16, 2003.
CRT (both direct view and projection) offers better resolution, contrast ratio and black level than plasmas, though the gap is closing with the newer plasma sets.
Vote with your eyes, not technical specs. I did and ended up with a 42" Panny SD plasma.
The problem w/ "vote w/ your eyes" is that unless you've spent many hours using your eyes for a wide range of content on well calibrated displays, you're not gonna get a good sample size to base your judgement on. IOW, you can't do it by just going to a typical store or show demo unless one display type is so clearly inferior that it's a no-brainer.
CRT is better, brighter etc.
Only thing plasma has going for it is size (thin) and hangability.
I've seen some calibrated plasma sets presenting images that took on a quality I've never seen from a CRT--like the difference between looking through a glass window vs. an open window (i.e., no glass). Very captivating.
I'd recommend trying to find a couple dealers that take time and care in setting up their demo equipment (CRTs, plasma, etc.), bring along the same DVDs each time, and kick back and watch some familiar material. And note which displays appeal to you emotionally. . .
I took some dvd's in to look at a 32" CRT widescreen tv and i was very disappointed. The pq was better on a 68cm 4:3 set for some reason. I tinkered with settings etc and just couldnt believe that the pic was heaps less sharp,blurry, and just ugly.
I mean there is no difference in technology is there? ITs just a ws tv and flat..if anything should look better. DOnt know, just hoping that if i got one home under better lights,better cables and dvd player it might be better. Looked at plasma too and did look very very nice, but im not paying the same price for a tv as i would a car!
This reply will surely rattle some folks. It is not the intent, and it is only my opinion.
I simply do not 'get' the rptv. It is last on the totem pole of the clarity issue, yet folks purchase them like there is no tomorrow. My question is...why?
I understand that they are big and the screen size is attractive with the cost ratio. But if the quality is not the same as a big, or even not so big direct view tv..why sacrifice picture quality (which is what it is all about) for size.
You can't sit up close and inch for inch it will never be as clear as direct view. What is the appeal? I'm not being arrogant here..just curious.
When I view my new 27" wega, I am often stunned at the picture quality, both in broadcast (some) and dvd. I wonder if I should upgrade to 32", and how immense that would look. And, of course, there is a 36..or even 40" available. Why would anyone opt out of such a picture to have a 'box' that said 'theater' but a picture that lags in comparison to direct view tv. I have seen 'no' rptv that has the clarity of a top of the line direct view.
More on my last post: Another thing I don't understand is that many folks spend so much money on their rptv systems. They then go out and buy the most expensive monster cables etc. They compare them as if they 'want' the best one for their money.
To me, it's akin to looking for the best tv with s-video. Why can't direct view tv be more suggested for folks who want the 'best' home theater (in a particular price range)picture available? If I walk into one more home and see a blurry, bigger than necessary rptv, I'm going to scream. Thanks for letting me vent. No offense to anyone here...I'd like to hear the other side of the story...
Lee - a properly calibrated RPTV can have a stunning picture, especially with good sources like anamorphic DVDs and HDTV. Sure they look like crap with cable, but that's because the cable signal is usually crappy quality.
If you watch cable on an uncalibrated RPTV, you're right, a direct view will trounce it. But a properly set up, ISF calibrated RPTV with a good quality source will produce a much better picture than the RPTVs you see on display at Best Buy.
IMHO, it's really hard to compare a direct-view to an RPTV unless all you wanted is a 40-42" TV. Even then, the direct-view's gonna cost you maybe 2x as much(!). And will a 50" direct-view, if it existed, trounce a 50" RPTV under proper lighting and setup? I don't doubt it'll look sharper and clearer, if built properly, but will it be so superior as to be worth the tremendous extra cost, if such a beast existed (and can fit in your room!)?
So the question boils down to top quality and flexibility in a small display size vs very good quality in a large display size w/ certain restrictions for the same $$$. It's all about compromise, and apparently, plenty of people feel the size is important enough to sacrifice some quality and flexibility. Heck! Even if you go from a 27" to a 36" direct-view, you're making quality sacrifices. And if you want a theater-like, immersive experience, the size is very important. And really, IMHO, RPTVs do look more like how film should look than typical direct-views.
Also, for true HD content, an RPTV looks stunning even close up and can take better advantage of the high resolution than a typical direct-view.
Of course, for regular SDTV programming, the large size itself will tend to make things look crappy as Kevin points out, but many/most of us probably did not make the jump to RPTV for regular SDTV programming to look good. Well, I certainly did not. I still intend to stick w/ the old 32" CRT for regular SDTV viewing.
Fair points...I don't mind hearing them. Here's a follow up question: If I go from my 27"wega300 series to the same in a 32"...will I get the benefits of a larger screen (especially for letterbox movies) but at the expense of less clarity because of upgrade in size.
I am so happy with my picture (sure it's not hd, I know)that I wonder what I'd be experiencing with a 32". My mother's 32" 3 year old trinitron does not compare to my new 27" wega, but I assume it's not because of size...but the newer technology. Technobabble aside, my picture has a 'wet' look to it, hers does not.Sooo...anyone care to comment on whether or not an upgrade to just 32" comes at a 'noticeable' price. Thanks in advance.
You provided the answer to why you are so vexed when you said:
Hey David Giles....nice name!!!lol
Continuing same discussion:
I get the points raised referring to my 'own' concerns over clarity. Well taken, but, while I do seem to prefer direct view, I can still pine for a somewhat larger image. My question was would I 'really see' any picture clarity issues with an upgrade from 27 to 32"?
I'm willing to take a hit for putting my foot in my mouth...but I still wouldn't mind input on that question. You might suggest I just go to circuit city and compare, but if I judged picture quality solely based on what I saw at the local store, I would never have purchased my wega, and never reaped the rewards when first fired up at home.
On the matter of theater projection being technically superior to that of any home theater system (dv, or rptv, or what have you): I had asked this question on another thread because I have always thought that the 'big screen' looked not as clear as other sources. Sure, I sit in the back and have bad eyes. That said, the responses assured me that theater projection is even more vivid than HD.
I didn't argue, because I don't have numerical facts on my side. But I still didn't see how anyone could say that theater projection is HD when it's not as clear, to me, as the HD at the local stores.
Sooo, is it that while the source starts out as HD clarity, it gets blown up to seem fuzzy, or what? Or is it that they were saying that if you took the specs on the big screened picture and downsized it...it would, then, inch for inch out-perform the clarity specs on all other sources including HD? No one, in that thread, admitted that theater projection was not as clear as HDTV. I didn not understand this..and still don't. Comments welcome.
I'm missing what you mean by "the responses assured me that theater projection is even more vivid than HD" and "No one, in that thread, admitted that theater projection was not as clear as HDTV".
What do you mean by "HDTV"? Something more than HiDef signals?
Mike, here is a link to the thread, started by yours truly.
I hope that works. If not just search threads under my moniker, there aren't too many. It's the thread that's headed something like "theater projection vs .."
I think the link will clarify my quandry. The greater than HD that you quote me one, is referring to numbers greater than the 1080p or whatever that HD utilizes.
Is your 27" an HDTV or at least EDTV, ie. 480p-capable? If not, it's quite possible that a 32" HDTV will actually look better to you than your 27" SDTV since you will benefit from 3:2 pulldown of film-sourced DVDs. BUT video-sourced content including typical 4x3 broadcast may exhibit linedoubling artifacts that you hate more than the scan lines on SDTV.
As for HD vs theater projection of film, etc., well, film itself can easily exceed HD resolution, even at 1080p. 1080p resolution is basically just 2Mpixel resolution. Good film stock should have capacity that far exceeds that. Of course, nobody actually watches film. We watch film projection. Still, the filmmakers should account for this in their filmmaking, and that's important to consider in what the movie should look like. Also, what you actually see in a theater will vary due to wear and tear of the film, possible substandard projection setup, etc., so it can easily look inferior to an RPTV w/ true HD content when you also factor in viewing distance.
I've never been to a fancy movie premiere, so I have no idea exactly how good film can look. I'll have to trust people like Roger Ebert, who say that 35mm film projection is still better than current digital projection technology, which I also haven't seen. I do know that current theater digital projection is actually somewhat less than 1080p resolution(!).
Anyway, I just did a quick search and found the following article, which looks like something you'd like to know and should help address your questions even though it doesn't do it directly. It actually compares DLP theater projection to film projection, and that should help give an idea of HD in HT projection vs film projection:
You should also check this page out for comparing apparent sharpness/clarity based strictly on resolution, size and viewing distance:
Thanks for that link. It helped me understand (I think) your question/thinking a little further.
A couple quick thoughts come to mind:
While an RPTV may be rated as offering "1080" lines of resolution or such, that doesn't mean it's actually producing this--it typically would need to be calibrated (particularly convergence). So what you see in the store (i.e., uncalibrated) won't reflect what an RPTV is actually capable of.
Two, if you sit the same difference from a 27" TV as you do from a 57" RPTV (or a 100" FPTV), I can see how one might have the impression of the 27" CRT offering more "detail" or "resolution". But sit back at a distance from those other displays such that your angle of viewing is the same as for the 27" TV and it would be a more fair comparison. Then resolution/clarity differences (or similarities) may become more apparent.
There is a lot of gear out there and some of it is truly outstanding--the FPTV demo's at AVS's now-annual dinner during CES, for example--stunning. And should be for the cost of the setups. But to me, more detail than I can perceive on a 27" or 32" TV.
What kinds of setups have you had a chance to see?