Is 10yrs old too early to die?

[Dusty Chalk]

BTY crts degrade over time, you gradually have to turn the brightness up to see them, you dont notice the worsening picture because of the "boiling frog" effect...

You keep making these idiotic sweeping statements, and wonder why we keep disagreeing with you. I mean, there are probably people who are fans of LCD saying to themselves, "I really should watch my LCD less, it obviously kills brain cells based on this guy".

There's a brightness control -- it's exactly for this. Anyone who has an eye for video knows that you need to adjust your set once in a while. Just like synthesizers need tuning after they warm up and vintage amplifiers need recapping every couple decades or so.

Your criteria for it being a superior technology is different from mine -- I have one: does it look better? You keep citing other criteria, and some of them are true, but you say them to such extremes that you make yourself out to be a liar or an exaggerator in the minds of those who know the facts.

[Mr Peabody]

II have also had excellent life span from CRT's. I had a 19" I bought in the 80's that lasted some where between 15 and 20 years. I bought a Pioneer RPTV that I used and then sold to a family member and it's at least 10 years old. I have a LCD 26" Sharp and to me the colors are softer than either my Sony CRT or Toshiba DLP but all of these are in different rooms and different manufacturers. LCD has a clear advantage in saving space but unless it comes down in price to near CRT levels there will always be a need for the cheaper alternative. My personal favorite our of the 3 for picture, SD or HD, is the Sony tube. All of them have great HD pictures but I just haven't seen anything I preferred, or thought was better than my Sony. Of course, the Sony is only 2 to 3 years old and has already been repaired once, this I found troubling, but it's not the technology, it's the QC.

[pixelthis]

II have also had excellent life span from CRT's. I had a 19" I bought in the 80's that lasted some where between 15 and 20 years. I bought a Pioneer RPTV that I used and then sold to a family member and it's at least 10 years old. I have a LCD 26" Sharp and to me the colors are softer than either my Sony CRT or Toshiba DLP but all of these are in different rooms and different manufacturers. LCD has a clear advantage in saving space but unless it comes down in price to near CRT levels there will always be a need for the cheaper alternative. My personal favorite our of the 3 for picture, SD or HD, is the Sony tube. All of them have great HD pictures but I just haven't seen anything I preferred, or thought was better than my Sony. Of course, the Sony is only 2 to 3 years old and has already been repaired once, this I found troubling, but it's not the technology, it's the QC.

Well, I hope your CRTS last a long time, because in a few years they wont be making them anymore.
AND after people live with the sound of color wheels, and color smearing, and replacing a 300$ light bulb every few years, I doubt
the market for either DLP or LCOS is going to be zooming, if they're still around, that is

[recoveryone]

Face it Pixel, you are on the losing end of this debate and it will not change until someone makes a display that is equal to the PQ of a CRT, At first plasmas was to be the new champ or DLP but both had their own short comings, but LCD was never a contender to CRT

[edtyct]

Well, a successor to CRT has emerged. Raymond Soneira of DisplayMate has supervised a series of display-technology shootouts over the last few years, the most recent involving LCoS rear-projection TVs. It was published in its entirety in Widescreen Review (Parts A through D) and is available over the web (extremetech.com). It is an excellent model of how to compare various displays scientifically and an excellent introduction to the variables involved.

I've extracted a few passages from Parts C and D to illustrate the findings, which are far more complicated than the quotations below might lead you to believe. I've included no information about LCD, plasma, or DLP, though it is all interesting. On the matter of CRT's dominance, Soneira writes, "Fifteen years ago the CRT had a virtual monopoly for displays used in televisions and computers. Today we have half a dozen competing display technologies. In spite of all this competition, the CRT has managed to hold onto its crown title as the reference standard against which all of the other display technologies are measured. There are two reasons for this: Each new technology had to mimic the dominant CRT in order to be accepted in the marketplace; and second, the image and picture quality delivered by the best CRTs was simply outstanding and untouchable by any of the new technologies. Virtually all professionally produced content is still produced and optimized on CRT monitors. So, while all of the other technologies have been quite successful at chipping away at the CRT's total market share, it has managed to hold on to the very top-end of the market and continue on as the reference standard for image and picture quality. But its lead has been steadily slipping; we'll review its current status here."

"Gamma-curve transfer function indicates how accurately displays follow the ideal power-law gamma of 2.20 via drive electronics and calibration. LCoS is the best, because all 256 signal levels are measured and adjusted to match the ideal relation. Other technologies lack this detailed calibration or are pushed for peak brightness instead of gray-scale accuracy. Modern CRTs require some signal processing to deliver the ideal gamma." This is an important point, since CRTs were often cited for their superiority in ramping from black to white without artifacts when the digital displays started hitting the market. LCD generally doesn't perform so well in this context; plasma has power issues that limit its ability to hold contrast (though the newer Panasonics and Pioneers might have alleviated them); and DLP's pulse width modulation creates dithering artifacts. Pulse width modulation doesn't appear to create the same ill effects when used on consumer LCoS displays (the studio version cited below uses voltage regulation instead for even better accuracy).

"In terms of image and picture quality, color and gray-scale accuracy, pixel-to-pixel sharpness, and freedom from artifacts, JVC Professional's 48-inch LCoS Reference Monitor (DLA-HRM1, $45K) with true 1920×1080 resolution easily outperforms Sony's flagship BVM 32-inch Professional CRT monitors (BVM-D32E1WU or BVM-A32E1WU, $42K plus plug-ins [the virtual professional standards]). The darker black level generated by the CRT is not an advantage in a studio, because they intentionally use a low (but not completely dark) level of ambient lighting for production work. The difference between the extremely dark black of a CRT and the very dark black of an LCoS monitor is not visually apparent. So the days of the CRT as the operational Reference Standard are over." You might also be interested to know also that Sir Terrence's TV studio replaced all of its CRT monitors with not LCoS but LCDs.

Although the JVC LCoS that won the shootout cost many more thousands of dollars than any consumer model ever will, accounting for much of its advantage, a couple of the consumer models/prototypes in the shootout--except for, ironically, JVC's own representative--made excellent showings. And consumer LCoS models have certainly become better since the shootout (as have LCDs, plasmas, and DLPs), though pro-calibre performance will presumably always evade them. But CRT consumer sets don't approach CRT professional units either, so the comparison between the two technologies is sound.

I've unavoidably clipped a great deal of Soneira's observations and conclusions. A complete reading might be rewarding for some people.

[Dusty Chalk]

Part A
Part B
Part C
Part D

...for those who would like direct links. (Thanks for the tip, will read offline.)

[recoveryone]

I tell you Ed, this is why we keep you around, but I do miss old Terence. I hope Mr Pixel takes a good look at your posting.

[pixelthis]

I tell you Ed, this is why we keep you around, but I do miss old Terence. I hope Mr Pixel takes a good look at your posting.

I read the post, and its interesting if you can afford 45,000
for a television.
DO you know what type of tech you can get for that price?
(not to mention a BMW hardtop convertible)
The difference between this "super" display and a regular of any type is small, a lot of people wouldnt notice, really.
Dont get me wrong, demos like this help advance the art, and might actually pay off for everyman in a decade or so.
BUT right now they are more an intellectual excercise than anything else

[edtyct]

They may be intellectual exercises to you, but they are in fact directly on point. These close studies demonstrate what the various technologies are capable of achieving vis a vis the standard of CRT. Not all of the displays in the various shootouts were models marketed for professional studios. The pro monitors are the most expensive and the most finished because they cut absolutely no corners; they have to be as reliable and steady as possible. Rather than being indistinguishable from consumer models, they might be even less appealing than consumer models; they tend to look too dark to most people. In case you haven't noticed, brightness, as well as edge enhancement, tend to be attractive to consumers--not so to pros. But if you're right that people wouldn't notice the difference, then these tests are certainly not the idle intellectual exercises that you propose; they make meaningful, educational comparisons that might just influence some buying decisions for the better. Furthermore, today's $45,000 display is tomorrow's $6,000 display. Check out the fall in prices for LCoS consumer sets/projectors--as well as that for plasma, for example, over the years. Why you think that somehow your aggressive favoring of a single technology, in the face of all sorts of resistance (some of it valid and some of it not), is somehow less worthy of a yawn than actual measurement and scrutiny by experts in the field is totally beyond me. And I do not happen to think, as others do, that LCD is the scourge of the earth or that anyone who watches anything but CRT is morally bankrupt or stupid. Maybe, for you, this discussion isn't about exchanging facts and personal preferences but an attempt to force everyone to share your preferences.

[Mr Peabody]

I heard the other day that Nintendo, I forget which system, is out selling PS3 and the X-box by a wide margin. This reminded me of this thread and I had to wonder how many gamers even think about HD movies when they buy a console. And, do those who buy PS3 buy enough Blu-ray to make an impact. I know this has been kicked like a dead horse but I was really surprised to hear that Nintendo is the best selling game console and to my knowledge it doesn't play movies. It just made me wonder if the PS3 angle was over blown. I believe I was listening to BBC news when I heard the story, I'll have to try and hunt the story down for more details. Please jump in if you know which Nintendo system and confirm it doesn't play any movies.

[pixelthis]

They may be intellectual exercises to you, but they are in fact directly on point. These close studies demonstrate what the various technologies are capable of achieving vis a vis the standard of CRT. Not all of the displays in the various shootouts were models marketed for professional studios. The pro monitors are the most expensive and the most finished because they cut absolutely no corners; they have to be as reliable and steady as possible. Rather than being indistinguishable from consumer models, they might be even less appealing than consumer models; they tend to look too dark to most people. In case you haven't noticed, brightness, as well as edge enhancement, tend to be attractive to consumers--not so to pros. But if you're right that people wouldn't notice the difference, then these tests are certainly not the idle intellectual exercises that you propose; they make meaningful, educational comparisons that might just influence some buying decisions for the better. Furthermore, today's $45,000 display is tomorrow's $6,000 display. Check out the fall in prices for LCoS consumer sets/projectors--as well as that for plasma, for example, over the years. Why you think that somehow your aggressive favoring of a single technology, in the face of all sorts of resistance (some of it valid and some of it not), is somehow less worthy of a yawn than actual measurement and scrutiny by experts in the field is totally beyond me. And I do not happen to think, as others do, that LCD is the scourge of the earth or that anyone who watches anything but CRT is morally bankrupt or stupid. Maybe, for you, this discussion isn't about exchanging facts and personal preferences but an attempt to force everyone to share your preferences.

Making my "preferences " known doesnt mean i WANT EVERYBODY TO SHARE THEM NESSESARILY, just make them known.
And your 45,000 dollar toy just got blown out of the water by a 3500$ sony, btw.
The new 1080p sonys are stunning, jaw dropping, you name it.
This is REAL resolution, and the layman who was with me also noticed how this set stood out from the others.
Cant remember the size, but this paticular model was 2295 or so.
And dont be so condescending to "everyman"
Most HAVE to have a brighter set, because in real world conditions
the kids are doing their home work, people dont want to eat in the dark, etc.
Thats one thing thats so great about LCD, no glare to speak of.
Buying a set for its picture quality alone is something few can afford,
there are a lot of compromises.
Does the wife like it?
Whats its real world durability?
Will the price keep me from buying other toys and luxeries(like food)
The great picture on a rear projection set wont look so good with a lamp washing it out, or with a six year old sticking a fork in it.
Attila the hun killed everybody in a village taller than a wheel axel.
Youi have to be taller than an axel to get to a set mounted on a wall
All I am saying is that LCD wil be the future, like it or not.
Are they perfect? Not by a long shot, but they are what the public is choosing, so better to concentrate our energies on improving the breed
while the form factor is young, because once its matured we'll be stuck with it, mostly

[edtyct]

And dont be so condescending to "everyman"

Rhetoric doesn't improve your arguments. I'm not condescending to "everyman." I'm just as much one of the crowd as you are. Like everyone else in the crowd, however, I happen to be informed about some things and ignorant about others. I keep reading aggressive opinions from you about LCD that many others don't appear to share, for valid reasons, but you still treat them as universals. So you appear to have a different agenda than I do. I don't happen to agree that people or companies with preferences and ideas different from yours are "stupid" (or any other perjorative term), though I'm more than happy to give your likes and dislikes their due. I've been impressed by more than a couple of LCDs, and I've seen many a CRT that has left me cold (though I don't see LCD eventually taking over the world on technological or economic grounds). But sometimes you, like me, can be simply wrong about a verifiable fact. Certain displays do certain things well, and certain displays tend not to do those things well. This is supposed to be an A/V enthusiasts' site, not just an apology for how nonenthusiasts spend their cash. You've been all over the map with your praise for LCDs: First they were better; now they're more popular. And so it goes. You are more than welcome to hold the floor if you want as long as you can get a response. I think that I've made every technical point that seems relevant to me about LCD's strengths and weaknesses relative to those of other display technologies.

[recoveryone]

And with that we can all say goodnight to this debate

[pixelthis]

Rhetoric doesn't improve your arguments. I'm not condescending to "everyman." I'm just as much one of the crowd as you are. Like everyone else in the crowd, however, I happen to be informed about some things and ignorant about others. I keep reading aggressive opinions from you about LCD that many others don't appear to share, for valid reasons, but you still treat them as universals. So you appear to have a different agenda than I do. I don't happen to agree that people or companies with preferences and ideas different from yours are "stupid" (or any other perjorative term), though I'm more than happy to give your likes and dislikes their due. I've been impressed by more than a couple of LCDs, and I've seen many a CRT that has left me cold (though I don't see LCD eventually taking over the world on technological or economic grounds). But sometimes you, like me, can be simply wrong about a verifiable fact. Certain displays do certain things well, and certain displays tend not to do those things well. This is supposed to be an A/V enthusiasts' site, not just an apology for how nonenthusiasts spend their cash. You've been all over the map with your praise for LCDs: First they were better; now they're more popular. And so it goes. You are more than welcome to hold the floor if you want as long as you can get a response. I think that I've made every technical point that seems relevant to me about LCD's strengths and weaknesses relative to those of other display technologies.

Check out the new 1080p flat panels from sony, if you cant afford it vizio has just come out with a 46 incher 1080 PROGRESSIVE
for 1700 bucks.
Trust me, if these new panels dont convince you of the possibilites
of LCDS than you cant be convinced.
Is the sony worth 2000 grand for its geegaws?
For some, no, but regardless its a great time to be a poor AV enthusiast

[recoveryone]

I was being nice above, but if you want to be stuck on stupid be our guess. we have presented to you the facts from varies sources to disprove your original claim of LCD's having better PQ. and you have jumped all around that point to try to convince yourself that due to the mass appeal of LCD's that it is the reason it is better. Nobody here every claim that LCD's were less convenient than CRT or did anyone state that the CRT would out live the LCD. Here we just like to keep the facts straight your preference is all up to you and yes there will be better LCD's coming out that will improve the PQ of it, but the technology of LCD was never made to surpass CRT and that is why CRT is still the standard that all other displays are compared to. If there was a better (In mass production) display that surpass CRT then it would be the new standard to meet. Is there one on the way? I would hope so, but until then please, I really mean this please don't quote your preferences as facts. We would be incline to support you if you would have just said a simple line "In My Humble Opinion" (IMHO).

[pixelthis]

I was being nice above, but if you want to be stuck on stupid be our guess. we have presented to you the facts from varies sources to disprove your original claim of LCD's having better PQ. and you have jumped all around that point to try to convince yourself that due to the mass appeal of LCD's that it is the reason it is better. Nobody here every claim that LCD's were less convenient than CRT or did anyone state that the CRT would out live the LCD. Here we just like to keep the facts straight your preference is all up to you and yes there will be better LCD's coming out that will improve the PQ of it, but the technology of LCD was never made to surpass CRT and that is why CRT is still the standard that all other displays are compared to. If there was a better (In mass production) display that surpass CRT then it would be the new standard to meet. Is there one on the way? I would hope so, but until then please, I really mean this please don't quote your preferences as facts. We would be incline to support you if you would have just said a simple line "In My Humble Opinion" (IMHO).

What do you know about being "humble"?
I have been around CRTS all of my life and am well aquainted with both their strenghts and weaknesses, and I have NEVER seen a commercial model capable of 1080p.
A few short years ago the best rez a set could deliver was at best 800
lines, and those were expensive. No one thought or even dreamed
that a set with 2 million pixels would be available in the near future,
mainly because a CRT with that kind of quality was commercially impossible.
Well, engineering sleight of hand (like all things DLP ) made "dithered"
1080p possible, and now increasing tech and economies of scale have made it possible on a much more stable platform.
These sets now coming out embarass even the best CRTS in all respects, I dont have to argue the case, my proof is showing up on the shelves of stores across the country as I post this.
So like the audiophiles of past years insisting that a turmtable was better than a CD in spite of all evidence you are basically reduced to chanting this PQ mantra of yours like it will deliver you from evil or something, still idiotically claiming that a 1080i picture, with all of the interlace artifacts and at best 800 lines of rezolution (when nothings moving!!!) is better than a picture with 2 million pixels, real resolution that doesnt disapear when something moves, and has no discernible pixel structure, unlike the 34in sony crt I saw the other day.
The truth is that you are stubborn, and are ignoring the most important thing, the one thing I do agree with you on, and thats picture quality.
These new 1080p LCDS are every bit as nice in picture as anything on the market, better in some respects, any objective person could see that.
I guess that, like in the audio world where snobs will turn up their noses at CD's, in the video world they will turn up their noses at LCDS.
thats fine, just keep squinting at you tiny crt screen, or your RPT
that looks like the box the UN building came in, I am going to enjoy the best picture thats around, as soon as the popcorns ready

[edtyct]

What's the 800 lines? CRTs have been capable of 1080 interlaced vertical lines for quite some time; this represents genuine resolution--two fields of 540 presented in rapid succession to fool the eye, as yours was fooled before fixed-pixel technology existed. The 800 lines that you mention was the approximate horizontal count for a direct-view CRT, until the Sony XBRs upped it to around 1300. Loss of resolution during movement has always been more of an inherent problem with HD images on an LCD screen than on a CRT, since LCD picture elements don't necessarily refresh quickly enough to catch motion on the fly. Loss of resolution during movement (camera panning included) is also an artifact of standard-definition signal processing on digital HD panels, like LCDs, directly because of their progressive nature and their intrinsic bias toward HD resolutions. Witness the phenomenon of "breathing" or "pumping" in processing.

You treat 1080p as if it's the be-all-end-all of image display. It isn't. It's certainly nice to eliminate interlacing and to increase pixel count, but the variables that enter into the PQ of a particular display or display technology far exceed the matter of its total pixels. Again, this isn't a controversial point. I could show you an outstanding 720p display that you wouldn't be able to tell from a 1080p display under common conditions. In fact, you might well like it better--under blind test conditions, that is--precisely because it handles color, processing, gamma, and black level with more finesse. Advertising hype and buzz is rarely the whole story in the real world. It can be kind of . . . what's word? . . . superficial.

You're right that you don't have to argue your case (which, I assume, is that LCDs are the most popular choice because they make better pictures than the competition). First, no argument is possible on your grounds; you live completely in a world of opinion, not fact. Now, of course, someone might responsibly announce a preference for a Sony LCD panel over, say, a Samsung LED-based DLP because he or she likes the feature set, or someone else might choose the Samsung over the Sony because its colors are more accurate. But you don't get your hands dirty with this kind of analysis. You traffic in absolutes and blanket statements, simply accepting what you see on store shelves as evidence of your own presuppositions and happily ignoring the details. It's clear that you have no technical understanding of why many professionals and enthusisasts retain a soft spot for the picture on a CRT. Because of your own incorrigible subjectivity, you're ill-equipped to attribute alternative views to anything but nostalgia or sheer "idiocy." Everyone else is deluded, but never you. How could anyone not prefer those flat, cute LCDs with their larger than life color palettes and cool-looking designs? Well, if you paid attention, you'd notice that some people actually explain why. Your need to be right prevents you from looking more deeply.

I'm sorry to tell you, but all display technology is based on sleight of hand. It's all an attempt to create a willing suspension of disbelief through deception. People may be affected differently by the different strategies because of their conscious and unconscious values, but meters and other objective measurement strategies exist to determine whether particular displays meet objective criteria for competent image creation. LCDs are subject to them as much as anything else, and none of them excels in every relevant respect; in fact, no TV does (pro monitors come closest, though they might not be right for every consumer's environment).

[recoveryone]

Once again you read only the headlines and misinterpet the post. I was giving you advice and agreeing with some of your other points about LCD's. But all you saw was my point about PQ which the standards of the industry backs me up and not whats stocking the shevles at BB. Remember I too have a LCD, (same brand as you, Vizio) so I do get to see the pluses and minuses of both displays. Ed put it best, don't get all butt hurt if your point is not factual and just your opinion. We all here have different opinions base on personal experience or industry standards. But the key is we state that its our opinion and not the next coming of Christ!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Such an important acronym "IMHO" is.

[PeruvianSkies]

Once again you read only the headlines and misinterpet the post. I was giving you advice and agreeing with some of your other points about LCD's. But all you saw was my point about PQ which the standards of the industry backs me up and not whats stocking the shevles at BB. Remember I too have a LCD, (same brand as you, Vizio) so I do get to see the pluses and minuses of both displays. Ed put it best, don't get all butt hurt if your point is not factual and just your opinion. We all here have different opinions base on personal experience or industry standards. But the key is we state that its our opinion and not the next coming of Christ!

Yeah! And...when the next coming of Christ happens it all won't matter anyway.

[pixelthis]

What's the 800 lines? CRTs have been capable of 1080 interlaced vertical lines for quite some time; this represents genuine resolution--two fields of 540 presented in rapid succession to fool the eye, as yours was fooled before fixed-pixel technology existed. The 800 lines that you mention was the approximate horizontal count for a direct-view CRT, until the Sony XBRs upped it to around 1300. Loss of resolution during movement has always been more of an inherent problem with HD images on an LCD screen than on a CRT, since LCD picture elements don't necessarily refresh quickly enough to catch motion on the fly. Loss of resolution during movement (camera panning included) is also an artifact of standard-definition signal processing on digital HD panels, like LCDs, directly because of their progressive nature and their intrinsic bias toward HD resolutions. Witness the phenomenon of "breathing" or "pumping" in processing.

You treat 1080p as if it's the be-all-end-all of image display. It isn't. It's certainly nice to eliminate interlacing and to increase pixel count, but the variables that enter into the PQ of a particular display or display technology far exceed the matter of its total pixels. Again, this isn't a controversial point. I could show you an outstanding 720p display that you wouldn't be able to tell from a 1080p display under common conditions. In fact, you might well like it better--under blind test conditions, that is--precisely because it handles color, processing, gamma, and black level with more finesse. Advertising hype and buzz is rarely the whole story in the real world. It can be kind of . . . what's word? . . . superficial.

You're right that you don't have to argue your case (which, I assume, is that LCDs are the most popular choice because they make better pictures than the competition). First, no argument is possible on your grounds; you live completely in a world of opinion, not fact. Now, of course, someone might responsibly announce a preference for a Sony LCD panel over, say, a Samsung LED-based DLP because he or she likes the feature set, or someone else might choose the Samsung over the Sony because its colors are more accurate. But you don't get your hands dirty with this kind of analysis. You traffic in absolutes and blanket statements, simply accepting what you see on store shelves as evidence of your own presuppositions and happily ignoring the details. It's clear that you have no technical understanding of why many professionals and enthusisasts retain a soft spot for the picture on a CRT. Because of your own incorrigible subjectivity, you're ill-equipped to attribute alternative views to anything but nostalgia or sheer "idiocy." Everyone else is deluded, but never you. How could anyone not prefer those flat, cute LCDs with their larger than life color palettes and cool-looking designs? Well, if you paid attention, you'd notice that some people actually explain why. Your need to be right prevents you from looking more deeply.

I'm sorry to tell you, but all display technology is based on sleight of hand. It's all an attempt to create a willing suspension of disbelief through deception. People may be affected differently by the different strategies because of their conscious and unconscious values, but meters and other objective measurement strategies exist to determine whether particular displays meet objective criteria for competent image creation. LCDs are subject to them as much as anything else, and none of them excels in every relevant respect; in fact, no TV does (pro monitors come closest, though they might not be right for every consumer's environment).

THANKS for proving my point, that you dont know what you're talking about.
1080i (interlaced) or interlaced anything for that matter doesnt represent 1080 lines of true resolution.
As long as theres no movement in an interlaced picture you get full resolution, but you dont get something for nothing, as soon as theres a movement the pictures resolution
drops, as much as by half.
This is a major advantage of progressive scan, and why some claimed early HDTVS werent much different than DVDS, they werent.
Some had resolution as low as 600 lines, an improvement over the ntsc average of around 300 or so but not much different than dvds 400 progressive.
This is why most experts in the industry, from joe kane on down, came out in favor of 720p, because they knew that real world resolution was better than 1080i.
1080p, requiring over two million pixels, was seen as years down the road.
AND its not the "end all be all", I NEVER said it was, nope, there is no absolute "best"
but 2000p is a nice target to shoot for, a target, like 1080p, that you'll never get with a CRT.
For one thing no ones trying, why invest in a dying techology?
But LCDS, its really just a matter of engineering, cramming that many pixels on a panel.
Kinda like the slight blurring you get sometimes, I have seen it maybe twice on my set.
It too is a matter of engineering, raw processing power, Although at 8ms its really not that much of a problem anymore.
And lcds werent really meant as a replacement for crts? HA!
ANYTHING was meant as a replacement for crts, the industry has been trying to replace them for years, promising solid state flat panels "right around the corner"
They are bulky, have a unpredictable aging process, prone to burn-in, expensive, power consuming, and, until they solved the problem, would every once in awhile explode.
Or rather implode.
And you will NEVER get one bigger than 34inches
I guess your condescending attitude is what gets me, you talk a lot of stuff that has no real world signifigance, you say picture quality is all, a good 720p can look as good as a bad 1080p? Go down to the store and use your eyes instead of your mouth, myself and a knownothing layman saw a 768 lcd playing a blu ray disc, and a 1080p playing some junk off of basic cable, and we BOTH had our socks blowed off by the 1080p
I gues another thing that bothers me is your cavalier atituide toward what is a fundamental advance in the art, 2 millon pixels on a display
Wheather sxrd, dlp or lcd direct view, this is a major advance, the other stuff is just minor engineering details.
I have been living with CRTS for 5 decades , the last five years with RPTVS,
I know whats better, if you like CRTS, fine, but better enjoy them now, because you wont be able to find one in a few years
And maybe if you had lived with these cantankerous beasts as long as I have you would'nt be holding on so dearly to them

[edtyct]

Yes, the industry expressed significant preference for 720p over 1080i on the issue of movement, as did other private and government applications. It's the reason why a few broadcast stations, like ESPN, chose 720p over 1080i for their hi def feeds (in general, it didn't matter; most receiving units in the home or in the providers' electronics converted 720p to 1080i, anyway). You can make as much hay out of that as you like. But outside of this difference between 720p and 1080i, if you can see it, progressive 720p displays have inherent difficulties with scaling and deinterlacing that can be even more disruptive to resolution, as I mentioned earlier. Why don't these facts mean anything to you? Are you listening or just reacting? The fact is that the CRT has delivered the image standard that all other technologies have to at least approximate. The entire broadcast industry is built on a platform based on what CRTs could do. Decisions made about how professionals were to treat color, black/white, and gamma derived directly from the strengths and weaknesses of CRT, and they are still in operation. If you'd listened, you'd have known that I have not been pushing CRT as the technology that everyone should hold and cherish at the expense of everything else. I have simply been underlining the fact that CRT represents the PQ gold standard and that LCD, as well as other technologies, have had trouble meeting it (I've even been attacked for not showing the proper respect for CRT). If it's condescending to discuss picture quality and viewing conditions at a video enthusiasts' site, so be it. But why isn't it condescending to say that those of us who don't agree with everything that you say, or who simply give due credit to technologies other than LCD, are idiots and know-nothings? That's not a particularly warm and fuzzy way to treat the unenlightened.

I see no reason to recant anything that I said before about relative resolutions, store displays, or CRT's benchmark PQ. And it is odd that you bring up Joe Kane as your ally. Kane is a huge advocate of leaving the interlaced world behind and for good reasons. But Joe Kane, as a consummate professional, has no reservations about CRT's traditional place in the video world, I'll bring this closer to home. Most people at this site, let alone in this discussion, know Terrence as a former moderator and a knowledgable A/V guy, who, not so incidentally, works in the broadcast industry. When Terrence was in the market for a TV, Joe Kane told him personally and directly to buy a Toshiba RP CRT, a 1080i model. He might have recommended any number of progressive panels or microdisplays, but he didn't.

By the way, if you think you have seniority on me, or superior acquaintance with, or knowledge of, CRTs, you may be mistaken. Aside from the ones that I've either owned or tinkered with during the last 50 + years, since 2000, I've owned two Toshiba RP CRTs, which I loved, and a Sony 34" CRT, which had terrific PQ (with certain flaws that I won't mention here) but ultimately proved too small and too bulky for my purposes. During this time, I've also owned a plasma, an LCD microdisplay, a Sharp LCD panel, and an LCoS microdisplay--all of them in the real world. Given my values, the LCoS is the champ.

[pixelthis]

Yes, the industry expressed significant preference for 720p over 1080i on the issue of movement, as did other private and government applications. It's the reason why a few broadcast stations, like ESPN, chose 720p over 1080i for their hi def feeds (in general, it didn't matter; most receiving units in the home or in the providers' electronics converted 720p to 1080i, anyway). You can make as much hay out of that as you like. But outside of this difference between 720p and 1080i, if you can see it, progressive 720p displays have inherent difficulties with scaling and deinterlacing that can be even more disruptive to resolution, as I mentioned earlier. Why don't these facts mean anything to you? Are you listening or just reacting? The fact is that the CRT has delivered the image standard that all other technologies have to at least approximate. The entire broadcast industry is built on a platform based on what CRTs could do. Decisions made about how professionals were to treat color, black/white, and gamma derived directly from the strengths and weaknesses of CRT, and they are still in operation. If you'd listened, you'd have known that I have not been pushing CRT as the technology that everyone should hold and cherish at the expense of everything else. I have simply been underlining the fact that CRT represents the PQ gold standard and that LCD, as well as other technologies, have had trouble meeting it (I've even been attacked for not showing the proper respect for CRT). If it's condescending to discuss picture quality and viewing conditions at a video enthusiasts' site, so be it. But why isn't it condescending to say that those of us who don't agree with everything that you say, or who simply give due credit to technologies other than LCD, are idiots and know-nothings? That's not a particularly warm and fuzzy way to treat the unenlightened.

I see no reason to recant anything that I said before about relative resolutions, store displays, or CRT's benchmark PQ. And it is odd that you bring up Joe Kane as your ally. Kane is a huge advocate of leaving the interlaced world behind and for good reasons. But Joe Kane, as a consummate professional, has no reservations about CRT's traditional place in the video world, I'll bring this closer to home. Most people at this site, let alone in this discussion, know Terrence as a former moderator and a knowledgable A/V guy, who, not so incidentally, works in the broadcast industry. When Terrence was in the market for a TV, Joe Kane told him personally and directly to buy a Toshiba RP CRT, a 1080i model. He might have recommended any number of progressive panels or microdisplays, but he didn't.

By the way, if you think you have seniority on me, or superior acquaintance with, or knowledge of, CRTs, you may be mistaken. Aside from the ones that I've either owned or tinkered with during the last 50 + years, since 2000, I've owned two Toshiba RP CRTs, which I loved, and a Sony 34" CRT, which had terrific PQ (with certain flaws that I won't mention here) but ultimately proved too small and too bulky for my purposes. During this time, I've also owned a plasma, an LCD microdisplay, a Sharp LCD panel, and an LCoS microdisplay--all of them in the real world. Given my values, the LCoS is the champ.

I never said you were a "know nothing" just that you didnt know what you were talking about. Not your fault really, you just have had the common sense "learned" out of you.
CRTS have never been the "standard", film has. TV'S have tried to emulate film, right down to the 4by9 layout since they came out.
And a lot of the "quality" of a crt is just your imagination, really, as it is anybodys.
I have lost the scary movies I used to watch as a kid, viewing them as an adult is a comical experience. I have watched CRTS all of my life and was amazed when, after a
hiatus of HD crt picture watching just what a crt looked like.
Soft and fuzzy, a visible pixel structure all sorts of artifacts
Heres the thing, CRTS have been around since the 30's, people have been trying to find a replacement for a reason, after aLL THIS time they still have major limitations, the fact that they arent any better than they are is a testament to those limitations.
Heres the one thing I want you TO admit, life is a series of tradeoffs, there are tradeoffs
to crts, JUST AS LCDS, DLPS, ETC.
The point is that in real world functionality and, yes, picture quality, just about anything beats a crt these days.
The only real advantage left to CRT is black level, and adaptive backlighting and an ajustable backlight among others will negate that.
When I watch stuff like 24 I turn the backlight down no problem, increases black level detail a great deal.
IF you refuse to join the 21st century and talk about improving the new form factors fine,
if not, I can introduce you to some guys who pay five grand for a single end triode amp putting out five watts, hooked up to a 20 thousand dollar turntable

[Mr Peabody]

Pix if you want to be the champion of LCD that's fine but I don't think your analogy of comparing video to high end audio fits. It's offensive that you would make light of those who appreciate good sound to some one like yourself who apparently can't hear any difference. I doubt if you have heard either a $5k amp or $20k turntable. If you had you'd have better sense than to make statements like that, unless you do have a hearing problem, which could be possible with long exposure to Klipsch.

If anyone knew Terrance personally and can verify his claims, let me know. I personally thought he was a boaster who was lucky to have done or known half of what he stated. I also thought Toshiba was pretty much out of consideration for good TV viewing until they came out with the DLP. When I was shopping for TV's Toshiba's CRT's were cheap but were doing good to match sets like RCA. I know on the show floor is far from good viewing but with all sets on the same playing field, Toshiba CRT's was never a consideration for me.

[pixelthis]

Pix if you want to be the champion of LCD that's fine but I don't think your analogy of comparing video to high end audio fits. It's offensive that you would make light of those who appreciate good sound to some one like yourself who apparently can't hear any difference. I doubt if you have heard either a $5k amp or $20k turntable. If you had you'd have better sense than to make statements like that, unless you do have a hearing problem, which could be possible with long exposure to Klipsch.

If anyone knew Terrance personally and can verify his claims, let me know. I personally thought he was a boaster who was lucky to have done or known half of what he stated. I also thought Toshiba was pretty much out of consideration for good TV viewing until they came out with the DLP. When I was shopping for TV's Toshiba's CRT's were cheap but were doing good to match sets like RCA. I know on the show floor is far from good viewing but with all sets on the same playing field, Toshiba CRT's was never a consideration for me.

Actually the comparison of high end audio to high end video is quite accurate.
Its a matter of snobbery, the human need to look down your nose at someone.
What do I know about turntables and single end triode amps? You'd be surprized
at my record collection, a lot I bought as a kid, and my old technics turntable that
still sounds pretty good. But just like so called "audiophiles" ignore the inherent deficiencies of vinyl (limited dynamic range, wow , flutter, rumble, having to constantly clean everything) and wax nostalgic about playing tunes on the old "platter" so do some
do the same thing on this board, waxing poetic about a display device that everybody
put up with because they had to and will get rid of as soon as possible.
My last crt was a samsung "tau" set, 30in, very nice. Nice but obsolete.
Picture quality is extremely important, but you make tradeoffs if you live in the real world.
I went with rear projection to get a bigger picture, none matched the picture on my 32in sony XBR, but the bigger size was worth the tradeoff
Most cant afford a backup set so reliability, ease of use and other factors have to factor into a buying decision. Doesnt matter if your Dlp measures a better black level than
my LCD in a lab (most wouldnt notice in the real world) if the color wheel broke or the light burnt out and you had to wait for a replacement. And try to keep dust off of the optics in these things, good luck.
I am not a "champion" of LCDS BTW, but they will make big screen HDTV available
to the great unwashed, and they are a heck of a lot easier to live with than Crts.
I like my movies the way they were made, and spent years watching letterboxed
movies the size of a postcard on 32in and under sets.
And if the snobs would get their frostbitten noses out of the upper atmosphere for a minute they would have to admit that, in the great scheme of things the modern displays look better, have bigger screens, and are really cheaper.
I just happen to think a flat panel is the best form factor for the real world, and is the best overall display device for the home
As for toshiba, everything I ever bought from them either underperformed or broke within
a few years