Is CRT better than LCD (with OTA digital tuner)? (1 Viewer)

[Rob*W]

I don't mean this as an inflammatory question (I've had my head out of HT issues for a few years) but I'd like to know if a CRT television is better than an LCD television.

Here's why I ask. I have a nice Sony CRT with wide screen (anamorphic) mode. If I hook up an OTA digital tuner (with a 480i S-video connection) I get a fantastic picture -- no complaints. However, it's a different story if I try the 1080i output from the digital tuner on my 24 inch Dell LCD computer monitor (1920 x 1200 pixels). I did this (with component cables) and the result is comparatively awful. On the LCD monitor smooth areas are blotchy, colors are dull, motion is bad, digital artifacts are apparent. Is CRT better than LCD, or am I not giving LCD a fair shake by using a Dell computer monitor?

I was planning to purchase a Sony LCD TV in the near future, but now I'm nervous that I'll be greatly disappointed (compared to my current CRT). I've been to the TV stores in person, but I never see anything but CG animated movies playing on the LCD's (which highlight an LCD's strengths, I think).

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

1) You're not really doing a fair comparison, and that includes paying attention to how things look on big box store showroom floors. You can never tell what a given TV can do until it has at least had the user-accessible controls adjusted to bring the picture up to industry standard. Most HDTVs, regardless of the imaging technology they use, will look fairly crappy "out of the box" for this reason.

2) That said, yes, CRT direct view is always going to look better than any of the currently available technologies.

The choice of an HDTV is always a compromise, because none of the options is perfect.

DLP and LCoS (which has been abandonded by JVC and Sony for RPTVs, although it might still be used in front projectors) have the true blacks and brightness to rival CRT, but they suffer from more limited viewing angles. OTOH, they offer great value in the 42" and up segment of the market. Inch for diagonal inch they are far cheaper than LCDs or plasmas, and you can't buy a direct-view CRT in these sizes.

LCD is much improved over the old days in handling black level, but it can't quite match direct-view CRT, or even most RP CRT TVs. But a properly calibrated LCD won't give you the problems you're seeing on your Dell monitor. CGI movies don't so much play to the strengths of LCD TVs as they hide the flaws in the factory settings for all TVs, that's why the Big Box guys like to use them. (That and the fact that they're kid-friendly.) It is hard to judge how "accurate" the color or brightness of a Cars or a Wall-E really is. We expect such films to be bright and colorful so they look "right" when the color, contrast and brightness controls are all pushed to the max - even though this puts the TV way out of spec. Same thing with sports - bright uniforms, garishly-painted arenas (and fans), not much to judge realistic images by. LCD also suffers from being washed out by ambient lighting.

Plasma has the true blacks to match CRT, but it remains the most expensive technology, the images will dim over time and despite much work there is still some concern about "burn in" of static picture elements, something which is a) much rarer with LCD and DLP and b) much easier to correct. (Burn-in is, of course, a problem plasma shares with CRT.)

CRT direct-view sets are limited in size and are also becoming much harder to find as the pressures of the market squeeze them out. (Consumers want LCD for most applications, plasma if they can afford it and DLP if they want the biggest screen for the buck and don't have to hang it on the wall.) CRT RPTV HD would be a great solution but they are a) big b) heavy and c) deader than the Dodo. I'm pretty sure the last CRT RPTV was produced a number of years ago.

Hope this helps.

Joe

 

[Allan Jayne]

Perhaps the digital tuner doesn't have enough processing power to regenerate the 1920 x 1080 high def. picture without having to pixellate (checkerboard) here and there.

Perhaps these defects don't show up in a SDTV rendering of the picture (S-video is SDTV regardless of the nature of the source program or the resolution of the screen it ends up on).

Even good reproduction of HDTV broadcasts has visible mosquito noise (individual pixels flicker by changing color slightly) if you get up close to look.

 

[DaveF]

I'm nothing but happy about upgrading from a 36" CRT to a 50" Plasma. The CRT didn't resolve anything close to 1080p (mine roughly 600p 4:3). It had substantial geometry distortion. And it weighed 2.5x more than the plasma, which was a practical problem over the years.

My very limited experience with Dell LCDs is they're great computer monitors but don't compare to a quality HDTV -- even LCD -- in black level and contrast.

Inlaws have a 52" Sony XBR and watching Wall-E in Blu Ray and playing Wii, I thought it looked gorgeous. I'd prefer it any day over my previous CRT.

The best CRTs may still have the best blacks, contrast, and color (I don't know). But I find the merits of the flat panels and shallow-depth RPTVs now outweight overall those characteristics. But your tastes may vary. Have a look a friend's LCD HDTV, watch some HD or Blu Ray on it, and see for yourself.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Purely anecedotal evidence: About 3 years ago my mom's 15 year old RCA RPTV finally dimmed to the point where it was nearly unwatchable. We're on a budget, so I got her a 36" Westinghouse LCD on sale at Best Buy. That Christmas I got my little nephew a lightsaber and the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD. (At that point he'd never seen any of the SW films, but he knew a cool toy when he saw one, and had asked for a lightsaber.) I wanted to show him some lightsaber footage that wouldn't spoil the plot too much, so I decided to run a little of the Vader vs. Luke battle at Bespin from The Empire Strikes Back. Now that's a movie that will give your black levels a workout. I was amazed to see how good the film really looked on her set. Granted, the 36" screen size helped. I'm not sure how good a 50" or even 42" LCD would have looked, but the black levels were excellent and the TV did a terrific job deinterlacing and upscaling the SD DVD to 1080p. (Westinghouse uses Faroujda processors.) And Vader didn't look anything but jet black to my eyes.

For what its worth.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Jerome Grate]

LCD is certainly looking better these days. I still have a Sony RPTV and as to 1080i, it is one beautiful looking set, but I've seen some 1080p LCD (Samsung) and DLP sets and I have to admit, Wall E (saw it in Sams) was by far one of the best pictures I've seen @ 1080p. Making me rethink my efforts in getting a 1080p LCD or DLP LED. As to broadcast t.v. I'v noticed a difference where the CRT RPTV gives a better picture than the 37 inch LCD in the bedroom. But my LCD is an old set 2 years to be exact and again seeing how far LCD has come (Sony, Samsung) it looks a lot better and I guess they are all 1080p.

At this point of the game if you are in the market for a new t.v. make sure it's 1080p. Some people say you can't tell the difference but comparing to a LCD that's 1200 x 768 (720p) I think the picture is much better.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

Or anything else for that matter.

I have a Dell 20" widescreen monitor and it's great for watching DVDs from the computer. Black level and contrast is decent enough.

But, it absolutely sucks eggs as a video display from any kind of regular video source.

To me, comparing a CRT made for video to a Dell LCD computer monitor is the epitome of "apples-to-oranges" - not even close. Whatever video circuitry these computer monitors have in them to receive feeds (mine includes composite and s-video), it just doesn't cut it.

The comparison needs to be made against real (and properly adjusted) LCD TV sets.