Why don't people buy CRT TV's

[magictooth]

Hi!

I've got agree with Keith on this one. A properly calibrated RPTV should look as good as a CRT. The difference may be the size. A 60" TV has nearly twice the surface area of a 40" TV. From the same viewing distance, you see a bit more of the fuzzy details. Also consider that if the RPTV is an older model, maybe it isn't a HD ready or progressive scanning type monitor.

If you want the best of the best, go try a front projector in a light controlled environment. If you want "blow the pants off" amazing picture quality, this will give you that effect. I guarantee that you'll be wondering why you took so long to get a front projector set up.

Dave

[woodman]

Hi!

A 60" TV has nearly twice the surface area of a 40" TV.
Dave

Minor correction here, Dave. A 60" screen has MORE than twice the screen area as a 40" ... 2.22 times to be precise. The screen area of a 40" is 690sq.in. The area of a 60" is 1535sq.in. These numbers are for 16:9 aspect ratio screens. For 4:3 ratio screens, the numbers are 782 vs. 1753 ... a difference of 2.24 times as large.

Your point about the larger screen showing any defects more clearly is right on the ol' button however. This is the primary reason why people continually claim that direct-view CRT sets are "clearer" and "sharper" than RPTVs. This is total bunk as many have already found out for themselves.

Also, your point about front projectors is right on the button as well. Today, I'd buy for myself (and recommend to others as well) a front projector over an above any other type of video display. I would NOT risk my hard-earned on any direct-view CRT set ... period.

woodman

I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
Steven Wright

[magictooth]

Minor correction here, Dave. A 60" screen has MORE than twice the screen area as a 40"[/i]

Sorry, my bad. This question came up when my brother was complaining about the lines on my 61" TV. I told him that if he watched his 27" TV from 3 feet away, that he'd see the same lines that he sees on my TV at 12 feet away. That shut him up about that issue.

I'm glad that some of the respected posters on this site are coming around to the idea of front projectors. In a light controlled environment, there is absolutely no equal, and with the prices falling like celebratory bullets from the sky in Iraq, the price:value ratio is WAY better than any other video monitor. I would not trade away my NEC HT-1000 on 96" 16:9 screen for anything (well I'd go for a better projector, I suppose).

Dave

[audiodude]

Could you elaborate on why you think that CRT TV's are terrible investments. As I understand things, CRT's have been around for decades and are proven as a reliable and refined technology. I have owned several CRT TV's without any tube malfunctions. Why are you so opposed to them when they provide the clearest,sharpest picture possible so far. I think that the other types of TV displays are relatively new and will need some improvements before they can match CRT's in picture quality. I don't dispute that front projectors are superior for movie viewing but I am really only interested in regular TV whether it be HDTV or otherwise.

[woodman]

Could you elaborate on why you think that CRT TV's are terrible investments. As I understand things, CRT's have been around for decades and are proven as a reliable and refined technology. I have owned several CRT TV's without any tube malfunctions. Why are you so opposed to them when they provide the clearest,sharpest picture possible so far. I think that the other types of TV displays are relatively new and will need some improvements before they can match CRT's in picture quality. I don't dispute that front projectors are superior for movie viewing but I am really only interested in regular TV whether it be HDTV or otherwise.

OK - I'll elaborate. I've worked with TV sets since the very beginning (1948) and I've seen the whole gamut of problems. Granted that CRT failures are rare ... they can and they do happen. IF the tube that does fail is a common, garden-variety 20" or 27" a replacement is a possibility, although the cost would probably come close to equalling the price of a new set. Close enough to call for a lot of thought as to whether or not a replacement is a good idea or not. Since such sets now cost so little - $125 - $300, it's not the end of the world if one dies.

However, if a "widescreen" CRT should fail, the cost to replace it will be prohibitive ... probably MORE than the cost of a brand new set! Since such sets go for $1500 - $3000 they're a RISKY proposition in my view. And in spite of what you believe, direct-view CRT sets do not produce "clearer" and "sharper" pictures than other displays do. The major difference in perceived picture quality is due to the smaller size of the screen - NOT to any superiority of the direct-view display over others. A properly setup and adjusted CRT-based RPTV is capable of image quality every bit as good as a direct-view ... period.

Since the prices for RPTVs and especially for front projectors have dropped so much in the past year or two, I would NOT consider for even a second risking MY money on a widescreen direct-view CRT set ... end of conversation!

woodman

I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
Steven Wright

[audiodude]

OK - I'll elaborate. I've worked with TV sets since the very beginning (1948) and I've seen the whole gamut of problems. Granted that CRT failures are rare ... they can and they do happen. IF the tube that does fail is a common, garden-variety 20" or 27" a replacement is a possibility, although the cost would probably come close to equalling the price of a new set. Close enough to call for a lot of thought as to whether or not a replacement is a good idea or not. Since such sets now cost so little - $125 - $300, it's not the end of the world if one dies.

However, if a "widescreen" CRT should fail, the cost to replace it will be prohibitive ... probably MORE than the cost of a brand new set! Since such sets go for $1500 - $3000 they're a RISKY proposition in my view. And in spite of what you believe, direct-view CRT sets do not produce "clearer" and "sharper" pictures than other displays do. The major difference in perceived picture quality is due to the smaller size of the screen - NOT to any superiority of the direct-view display over others. A properly setup and adjusted CRT-based RPTV is capable of image quality every bit as good as a direct-view ... period.

Since the prices for RPTVs and especially for front projectors have dropped so much in the past year or two, I would NOT consider for even a second risking MY money on a widescreen direct-view CRT set ... end of conversation!

woodman

I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
Steven Wright

Maybe I haven't seen a properly set up RPTV but the absolute best picture that I have seen a TV produce was the Sony kv34xbr910 CRT TV. It was so much clearer than the other TV's near it and I could see much more detail in the movie Shrek that was playing. Shrek actually looked almost real. I was amazed at how much better it was. It was even better than the other CRT's. It might be worth checking out.

[Keith from Canada]

Maybe I haven't seen a properly set up RPTV but the absolute best picture that I have seen a TV produce was the Sony kv34xbr910 CRT TV. It was so much clearer than the other TV's near it and I could see much more detail in the movie Shrek that was playing. Shrek actually looked almost real. I was amazed at how much better it was. It was even better than the other CRT's. It might be worth checking out.

I think that it must be the case that a) you have not seen a properly calibrated RPTV or b) that the TVs around the Sony were poorly set-up. Fact of the matter is, once a TV is calibrated properly it will have close to perfect grey-scale and black level which allows for perfect colour rendition. Also, a calibration will defeat various features that 'muddy' the picture like scan velocity modulation. Add to that a good lens striping and you will have an image that is perfectly sharp and detailed.

My guess would be that the Sony that you saw in the store was closer to the calibration specs for all or many of the variables that I've listed above and the other sets in the store were not. As I've mentioned before, the image on a properly calibrated RPTV will be no better or no worse than the picture on a properly calibrated CRT.

[dax]

Today, I'd buy for myself (and recommend to others as well) a front projector over an above any other type of video display. I would NOT risk my hard-earned on any direct-view CRT set ... period.[/i]

I would love a front projector. Unfortunately, I do not have the room layout for something like that. I only have enough space for something like a 42" screen. I was seriously considering the Mitsubishi RPTV, but have fallen in love with the Samsung hln467w, which is a 46" dlp which would fit in about the same space. What are your thoughts on these dlp sets, Woodman? Or anyone else?