-
You still cannot put together information correctly. It must be the fact that you have been doing far too much dumpster diving, and the scent of the trash has f*cked up your brain.
Quote:
can tell you from reading thousands of magazines and books and websites on the subject that progressive is better than interlaced.
1080p IS better than 1080i. 720p IS NOT better than 1080i, especially not with movies. 720p has half the pixel count, and therefore less detail than a 1080i image. 720p only advantage over 1080i is during moving images, and that is only in theory. In the field response times, and motion blurring erase any advantage 720p would have over 1080i
Quote:
One reason is that an interlaced picture loses up to half its resolution when theres movement.
In theory you are correct. However our eyes and brains do not look at images a frame at a time. It blends frames together to create images, and it does it so fast our eyes cannot perceive that any resolution is lost during refreshing. While fixed panels "paint" the image all at once, there is a lag on and off of the pixels(response time) and a smearing of one image over another(motion blur), and that would erase any advantage progressive would have over interlaced signals that do not suffer from this problem.
Quote:
But sir talky says "not so" for the simple reason that 1080i IS A HIGHER NUMBER THAN 720P!!!
You are a damn liar a$$hole, I never said any such thing. I always knew you were a stupid old man, but I never knew you were a stupid lying old man. 1080i and 1080p are both 2.07 million pixels. The only difference between the two is that one is all the resolution at once, the other in alternating fields. If interlacing is done well (weaving instead of bobbing) you would be hard pressed to tell the difference at typical viewing distances. 720p is not even a million pixels. So it does not make any difference that it all the resolution on the screen all the time, its less information than 1080i. And even if you are(in theory) only seeing half the resolution during moving images, the refresh and scan rate is so quick, and our eyes and brains are so intelligent, that it sews the images together much quicker than our eyes can detect. My problem with your theories is that they do not present the eye/brain side of the equation. You only present HALF the facts, not the whole picture. You are making lab theory field fact, and it does not work that way.
Quote:
If the actual, real world resolution of that 1080i picture is 650 lines you'd be lucky,
and then theres interlace artifacts.
You are wrong again, and you are generalizing. Not all CRT based display devices are alike. Your experience is with cheap single gun CRT's. You have no experience with high quality RPTV's that easily exceed 650 lines(Mitsibishi, Toshiba, Hitachi, and Sony top of the line 2004 RPTV's could do 900-1000 lines), and CRT based front projection system can do 1100 lines. In the last generation of quality RPTV and front projection systems, DSP processing either internally, or with outboard processor were very sucessful in dealing with interlacing artifacts. Most interlacing artifacts that are viewable are the result of cheap interlacing algorythms(bobbing). Weaving is far superior, and results in FAR less viewable artifacting. The other side of the coin is downscaling from 1080p to 720p also produces viewable artifacts. Most interlacing artifacts come from the fact that you are presenting an image that was recorded in 480i to 1080i. 1080i to 1080i produces alot less artifacting, and 1080p to 1080i produces almost none. The higher the resolution of the interlaced image, the fewer interlacing artifacts you will see, that is because the lines get closer and closer as the resolution get higher.
Quote:
My electronics treacher in 1975 told me that the real world rsolution of a ntsc picture
(480i) is around 240 lines, Joe Kane, television guru says pretty much the same thing, advocating 720p as a broadcast standard because its better (which ABC thought also, they broadcast in 720p).
Another lie. Joe Kane has NEVER said any such thing. 480i is 480 lines of resolution on a 4:3 screen. When you letterbox that image at 1:85 or 2:35:1 the lines of resolution drop to 380 and 330 lines. So if your electronics teacher told you that information, then I blame your stupid teachers for making you the same way. The resolution of VHS is 240 lines. ABC chose 720p because the network produces alot of sports programming. 720p is better for fast moving motion, and 1080i is better for static images such as movies and television shows. Its not as easy as progressive is better. Joe Kane DOES say that, because I heard him do so at CES back in 2006 during his hi def workshop.
Quote:
But this ninny says that 1080i is better because 1080 is a higher number than 720,
and I am supposed to genuflect in front of this silly moron and say "I'm sorry, you're right"
???
1080i is 1920x1080, 720 is 1280x720. 1080i is 2.07 million pixels, 720p is 921,600. Since pixel count does determine the amount of resolution you see, you are right, 1080 is a higher number than 720. And yes, you should say I am sorry, he is right. However you are too stupid to do that.
Quote:
In spite of the fact that hes talking gibberish?
He talks about his "system" which "some guys from work" cobbled up for him like its a real world standard, when from his description it cost at least 200 grand,
uses CRT projection( ONE crt projector when anybody knows that you need two because the light output is too meager)
Cobble means to repair, and my set was not repaired, it was upgraded and redesigned, very different. It did not cost 200 grand, it didn't even cost 20 grand. It was upgraded and redesigned based on a standard RPTV chassis, using top of the line optics found in front projection projectors. All this is based on existing modified parts, not some unreal world standard. The optics in my set are modified Sony G90 CRT's. It is pretty common to color correct those tubes(I bought mine already done). 9" tubes can be found in Mitsubishi 65" and 73" CRT based RPTV's, and Toshiba top of the line 65"(65h84). As far as light output, you are behind the times again. A front projection system with 9" guns has no problem meeting SMPTE standards on a 300" screen. The G90 can output 1300 lumens, so one will do just fine thanks.
Your problem pixelpuss is you have no experience with CRT beyond the cheap single gun 32 incher. Once you go to the high end, you are lost and trying to tie in your experience with cheap stuff with the well engineered stuff not trying to meet a $300 price point. You are mixing small truths with huge lies and misinformation. You are constantly averting the small detail(which really does matter) just to expedite your point, and that often is where you get lost. You think that just because you read a few magazines, that you know a little something. You are right, you know a LITTLE something, at that is all.
In the future when you quote me, get your $hit right or don't quote me.
-
1080p IS the best format out there, no debating that.
What talky said (and later backtracked on) is that 1080 INTERLACED
is better than 720p, which is BS squared.
As for the rest of his rant, anybody got some designer tranks? Sounds like he needs em
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
Who knows? Is that some sort of "inside joke" that you share with your relative, Pix? I didn't know you 2 were relatives. Is he your older brother?
No WONDER your sticking up for him. Jeez man. Sorry for railing on your bro. GM you ought to be ashamed. Making fun of Rich's brother.
We are not relatives, unlike you and your wife, when you started dating.
Rich is a relative "know nothing" as compared to you, who is a relative knows less than nothing, meaning that what you do know is wrong:1:
-
Another thing I must address that sir talky said during his latest meltdown.
Its not that our eyes and brains are so "smart " that they weave two fields into
a single picture, the theory is that our eyes are too slow to catch the chicanery
going on behind the scenes.
But when theres movement it all falls apart, during casual viewing the pictures fine,
but a progressive picture is A lot more soild and artfact free.
And "cobble" is a word talky used about his system, the famous mercurial system that changes to fit the conversation .
And I had a Mitshu 60in rptvstandard def, very nice, but it showed the failings
of CRT when trying to cast a large picture.
Since the brightness drops as the pitch of a CRT increases, a HD crt would be very compromised.
THIS IS why it was common to use two projectors in tandem for enough brightness to see the picture, which still required absolute darkness :1:
-
And I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but talky also says that 480i is 480 lines of resolution.
Its silly statements like this that lead me to beleive that his ass is full of sand.
480I IS 480 SCAN LINES made up of two fields.
I am constantly trying to explain to laymen that scan lines are different from
lines of resolution.
SCAN LINES are the number of lines the picture is composed of, resolution is how fine
the set can resolve detail, this is TV 101.
Put a test pattern on screen and see how far down the scale you can resolve a line of increasingly finer bars.
Why does the "expert" keep missing the basics?
And joe kane did say that progressive is better than interlaced, not once but several times. I read it in a long ago issue of Widescreen review :1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
We are not relatives, unlike you and your wife, when you started dating.
Rich is a relative "know nothing" as compared to you, who is a relative knows less than nothing, meaning that what you do know is wrong:1:
Really? An incest joke? Is that the best you have?:rolleyes5:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Another thing I must address that sir talky said during his latest meltdown.
Its not that our eyes and brains are so "smart " that they weave two fields into
a single picture, the theory is that our eyes are too slow to catch the chicanery
going on behind the scenes.
The process is too fast, our eyes are too slow. What the hell is the difference stupid?
Quote:
But when theres movement it all falls apart, during casual viewing the pictures fine,
but a progressive picture is A lot more soild and artfact free.
A progressive picture IN THEORY is more solid. However theory usually fails in the field when actual devices are used. In the field, LCD and Plasmas suffer from motion blur, and slow response times which kills the theory dead. You seem to love to side step this fact.
Quote:
And "cobble" is a word talky used about his system, the famous mercurial system that changes to fit the conversation
You are lying again pixeliar. I never EVER mentioned the word cobble, EVER. Aside from your obvious stupidity, your lying has further killed your credibility.
.
Quote:
And I had a Mitshu 60in rptvstandard def, very nice, but it showed the failings
of CRT when trying to cast a large picture.
Oh yeah, your cheap a$$ has had everything under the sun. Next you will be telling us you invented the internet. Your 60" was probably the cheap model with 7" CRT's.
Quote:
Since the brightness drops as the pitch of a CRT increases, a HD crt would be very compromised.
My television meets SMPTE standards for light output on a 65" screen with no problem at all even with 1440p test signals. The Sony G90 meets SMPTE standards on a 300" screen with no problem at all with 1080p signals. HD CRT's are used in every mastering house in Hollywood. So where is your proof of compromise?
Quote:
THIS IS why it was common to use two projectors in tandem for enough brightness to see the picture, which still required absolute darkness :1:
Two stacked projectors are only used for screen sizes larger than 300". Tell the whole story pixelidiot.
You have a real problem with presenting the WHOLE picture. You put out bits and pieces of a point without regards to the other side of the equation. One deminsional points are useless when discussing complex issues. Generalization are also not helpful because you are not addressing the fact that internal or external processing can be used to mitigate artifacts that are inherent to any visual device.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
And I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but talky also says that 480i is 480 lines of resolution.
Its silly statements like this that lead me to beleive that his ass is full of sand.
480I IS 480 SCAN LINES made up of two fields.
We do not look at televisions scan lines, the process of scanning is too quick to even make this a point of discussion. NTSC television is based on 525 scan lines of picture information presented in two fields, each field representing half resolution. 486 of those lines are what we use for visual information. Since the temporal effect of our eyes and brains do not represent a half field viewing, you cannot measure resolution based on half field information. You seem to like to do this. Your 240 lines is only half the amount of resolution our eyes see at any given time. So your THEORY is correct, but you cannot measure theory, you have to measure what the eye actually captures.
Quote:
I am constantly trying to explain to laymen that scan lines are different from
lines of resolution.
SCAN LINES are the number of lines the picture is composed of, resolution is how fine
the set can resolve detail, this is TV 101.
Hence, the more scan lines that compose the picture, the more resolution you can see. That is why there is more information in a 1080i signal than in a 480i signal. You need to put the pieces together.
Quote:
Put a test pattern on screen and see how far down the scale you can resolve a line of increasingly finer bars.
Why does the "expert" keep missing the basics?
And joe kane did say that progressive is better than interlaced, not once but several times. I read it in a long ago issue of Widescreen review :1:
This is a duh statement. The more lines, the more of the finer bars you can resolve.
Here is the problem with what you present. Its only half the information. We have not talked about scan rate, how far you are setting from the device, how well the internal or external processing deals with motion and artifacts, refresh rates, and visual acuity. You are just looking at a single deminsion of theory without all of the other factors that complete the whole picture.
Can you tell me if CRT is so compromised why all high definition programming from monitoring to mastering done on CRT based devices?
Once again you are taking Joe Kane's comment out of context. I have subscribed to Widescreen review since it started. I have every issue going back to 1996, and I have read everything he has published in that magazine.
Joe Kane has said that progressive is best when we speak of 1080p. He has never said that 720p was better than 1080i EXCEPT when fast motion is taken into consideration. For film based material with a lot of static images, 1080i is better than 720p because their is more information on the screen in 1080i. 1080p is best overall, and I think everyone acknowledges this. He has also said that this whole 1080p versus 1080i arguement fails when you take viewing distance and the 24fps frame rate for film into consideration because of the conversion from 24fps to 60ftps. Tell the whole story.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
I am constantly trying to explain to laymen that scan lines are different from lines of resolution. SCAN LINES are the number of lines the picture is composed of, resolution is how fine the set can resolve detail, this is TV 101.
As Sir TT explained, that statement is completely false.
Scan Lines are part of resolution (vertical resolution). Why do you think we moved from 480 scan lines to 720 and 1080 scan lines for HD? Because 720/1080 means more scan lines AKA more resolution (answered my own question :D)
If you look at TV resolution specifications in the manual, you will note that both horizontal and vertical resolution are stated as either 640 x 480, 1280×720 or 1920x1080 i/p as both numbers will determine TV’s total resolution. The higher the scan lines, the more resolution a TV will have.
-
This is really getting good...could someone pass the popcorn?
-
You just gotta chill out a bit, old man.
I think 99% of us here can learn a thing or two from your audio knowledge. But you gotta learn to take in others' advice, before spitting off your knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
well, GEE, thanks for your "help" but I need to explain something, I have been doing this for 40 odd years now.
I built a three stage solid state amp when I WAS 17, (using F.E.T. transistors)
Probably couldnt do it today without a kit, but I DID do it.
Put it on top of an old tube fisher fm tuner, sounded quite good.
And did this before you were a wet spot on your mamas undies.
Why do I REFUSE TO ADMIT that I am wrong? Because most of the time
I'M not.
And I am not going to lie and say that something I learned in electronics class is "wrong"
just to win the favor of a bunch on this site that really are a lot more clueless than they think?
NOPE, because I am a GROWNUP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
And an astute observer of human nature, thanks to a career in law enforcement,
I SMELL BACON!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
started when dyslexia made it increasingly more complicated to compete in electronics.
For instance why do you think GM is always there with the smartass remark?
And always turns a thread away from the subject, to something silly as hell?
Because his knowledge of most subjects is rather , ah, "slim" to put it politely?
Why is sir talky so immature? Because hes a young man impersonating either someone he made up or a real person, maybe a relative, but if he is out of college
yet it would surprize me, if he werent out of high school it would'nt.
I get "into trouble" trying to challenge some people on this board, my bad , they dont have any gray matter to challenge, especially "groundgeek" who has a picture of his
brains as an avatar.
But I must admit that the viciousness of some attacks is rather off putting sometimes,
but again I am a grownup and rather abrasive myself sometimes, a little heat is something I AM TOO USED TO.
Did you know that a plasma burns LESS energy than a LCD? YEP!
At least that is what the clueless wooch says. AND HES' the ONLY one who says it,
its common knowledge that a plasma tv is an energy hog, sometimes burning as much as
thirty times as much energy as an LCD in a year.
But I am "stubborn" because I refuse to admit hes "right" when what he says contradicts
EVERY source you can find on the subject.
And WHEN I say plasma is "dead", well, thats silly.
But there was a photo in the paper today of Sonys new toy, an 11" OLED television,
prices are expected to drop and size to rise, it wont take three years for this form factor to become dominant.
And that should make the snobs on this board happy, they keep citing "black level"
as one of the "great" things about plasma, when the difference between LCD and plasma is slight at best, and glare from plasma negates a lot of that.
Well, they should love OLED, the black level is PERFECT.
And plasma sales are already dropping, considering how long it took a LCD panel to go from 2,000 for 15" TO 550$ for a 32" , and considering that OLED is easier to make,
not only is plasma "DEAD", LCD wont be far behind.
I can tell you from reading thousands of magazines and books and websites on the subject that progressive is better than interlaced.
One reason is that an interlaced picture loses up to half its resolution when theres movement.
But sir talky says "not so" for the simple reason that 1080i IS A HIGHER NUMBER THAN 720P!!!
If the actual, real world resolution of that 1080i picture is 650 lines you'd be lucky,
and then theres interlace artifacts.
My electronics treacher in 1975 told me that the real world rsolution of a ntsc picture
(480i) is around 240 lines, Joe Kane, television guru says pretty much the same thing, advocating 720p as a broadcast standard because its better (which ABC thought also, they broadcast in 720p).
But this ninny says that 1080i is better because 1080 is a higher number than 720,
and I am supposed to genuflect in front of this silly moron and say "I'm sorry, you're right"
???
In spite of the fact that hes talking gibberish?
He talks about his "system" which "some guys from work" cobbled up for him like its a real world standard, when from his description it cost at least 200 grand,
uses CRT projection( ONE crt projector when anybody knows that you need two because the light output is too meager)
Well, he doesnt know, apparently.
And I predicted that HDDVD was "dead" too, not a hard one to make if you know whats going on, but nothing but ridicule from THAT, especially from HD owners who were too clueless to know they were investing in a dino from day one.
And so on.
In other words, if you are waiting for me to "admit" I am wrong when the world agrees with
ME, sorry, I won rather you will admit it or not.
And I WILL KEEP ON WITH THE THANKLESS TASK OF
trying to drill some knowhow into a rather hard set of skulls.:1:
Also retarded.
Seriously, if you dont chill out we are going to have you kicked off of this site. I do agree with some of your comments above, but your remarks about other members is about as original as "I SMELL BACON".
Seriously, calm down.
JRA
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
Why is it that I have so few responses in all of my RX-V3800 threads from those who so quickly attack him? Was this the wrong answer? Why didn't his detractors come over and dispute it? It's obvious to me from this that some people like me and some can't be bothered, so why doesn't the same attitude apply to him?
Just MY observation, take it FWIW.
Statement above, was that directed for my attention? If so, please explain, Do I need to read up on your RX-3800 thread? I'm not quite following you here.
JRA
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Why do I REFUSE TO ADMIT that I am wrong? Because most of the time
I'M not.
:out:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
And I am not going to lie and say that something I learned in electronics class is "wrong"
just to win the favor of a bunch on this site that really are a lot more clueless than they think?
No, you're going to lie, just because that's the only way that you can maintain this delusion that you're never wrong! C'mon, the truth ain't so bad. Besides, with everyone wising up to your charade, it's not like you got anyone left on this board that you can fool anyway! :cool:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
NOPE, because I am a GROWNUP.
Actually, you're just old. :ciappa:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
And an astute observer of human nature, thanks to a career in law enforcement,
......self-aggrandizing nonsense snipped ......
Why is sir talky so immature? Because hes a young man impersonating either someone he made up or a real person, maybe a relative, but if he is out of college
yet it would surprize me, if he werent out of high school it would'nt.
And given that I personally know Sir T, I can safely say that your "astute" observations about him are just as off-base as your grasp on most home theater topics! Of course, your "astute" observation about "human nature" (and everything else for that matter) is that we're all DOOMED, DOOMED I TELL YOU DOOMED! DID I MENTION DOOMED? :3:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
I get "into trouble" trying to challenge some people on this board, my bad , they dont have any gray matter to challenge, especially "groundgeek" who has a picture of his
brains as an avatar.
But I must admit that the viciousness of some attacks is rather off putting sometimes,
but again I am a grownup and rather abrasive myself sometimes, a little heat is something I AM TOO USED TO.
All you're getting is a taste of what you dish out. Don't like the flavor? Learn how to cook better! :17:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Did you know that a plasma burns LESS energy than a LCD? YEP!
At least that is what the clueless wooch says. AND HES' the ONLY one who says it,
Couldn't win this argument the first two times, so here you go repeating the same idiocy yet again! I've stated before, and I'll state it again, plasma CAN consume less energy than LCD, and energy consumption tests prove this.
Once again, here's the quote from the January 2006 issue of Home Theater magazine, which relies on actual power consumption measurements, rather than factually and grammatically challenged rantings ...
Out of the box, the plasma is slightly better than the LCD, at 194 watts. Drop the contrast to 80 percent of its maximum (where you'd expect a calibrated set to be, more or less), and now you're down to 162 watts. That's a savings of $0.40 each month (calculated based on two hours per day of use) over the full-lamp LCD!
In that case, using out of the box settings running identical test signals, the plasma set was already using 38% less power than an equivalent LCD set. So, I'm obviously not the ONLY one saying this. And this ain't the first time I've knocked down this pathetic generalization, and it sadly won't be the last, given your demonstrated incapacity to let it go! I've already beaten you down on this point twice, I guess you're now gunning for three! :cool: This is like watching a recorded sporting event -- repeating the same scene over and over doesn't change the outcome, but I guess you'll keep trying!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
its common knowledge that a plasma tv is an energy hog, sometimes burning as much as
thirty times as much energy as an LCD in a year.
Common knowledge or another one of your common lies?
30X, where's your source on that? I'd sure like to see it! Maybe if that LCD is on standby, you might have a case, but otherwise, we'll just have to add it to the long list of unsupportable nonsense that you've posted.
Couldn't win this argument on two other threads, so you keep repeating it yet again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
But I am "stubborn" because I refuse to admit hes "right" when what he says contradicts
EVERY source you can find on the subject.
Either your reading comprehension is worse than even I suspected, or you're flat out lying yet again. I already cited a reputable source that measured real world conditions under which plasma uses less energy than LCD, and you continue to deny deny deny -- how sad to live in such a state! :hand:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
But there was a photo in the paper today of Sonys new toy, an 11" OLED television,
prices are expected to drop and size to rise, it wont take three years for this form factor to become dominant.
Hmmm, and given that Samsung is projecting at least two more years before anything close to 40" will even come onto the market, you're saying that OLED will come to market and achieve market dominance in only one year? Where's your evidence that this kind of rapid adoption is even possible, since it has never happened before and you don't know squat about any production issues or line capacity limitations that might crop up within that time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
And that should make the snobs on this board happy, they keep citing "black level"
as one of the "great" things about plasma, when the difference between LCD and plasma is slight at best, and glare from plasma negates a lot of that.
And as I've stated before, if OLED is all that it's cracked up to be, then I'll be glad to see LCD and plasma gone, given that both technologies have significant drawbacks.
Of course, you ignore that point, and ignore the sizable advantage that plasma has over LCD in the area of motion resolution. 1080p plasmas can generally display 800 to 900 lines of resolution with moving images, while even 120 Hz LCDs have a motion resolution of less than 600. Oh, and BTW, Home Theater's lowest motion resolution measurement in their November 2007 roundup was with a 1080p Vizio LCD, which had a motion resolution of 380 -- this means that with moving images, the resolution on that LCD set dropped BELOW DVD resolution! Tell me again how these differences are "slight at best"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
And plasma sales are already dropping, considering how long it took a LCD panel to go from 2,000 for 15" TO 550$ for a 32" , and considering that OLED is easier to make,
not only is plasma "DEAD", LCD wont be far behind.
Well, that's all well and good, but given that the only set on the market RIGHT NOW measures 11" and costs $2,500, OLED doesn't mean a thing for anyone who's in the market for a TV RIGHT NOW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
In other words, if you are waiting for me to "admit" I am wrong when the world agrees with
ME, sorry, I won rather you will admit it or not.
And I WILL KEEP ON WITH THE THANKLESS TASK OF
trying to drill some knowhow into a rather hard set of skulls.:1:
:lol:
Actually, your thankless task is trying to make half-truths and debunked nonsense sound coherent! And on that count, you're slacking off, your ramblings are still as incomprehensible as ever ... c'mon get to it! :ciappa:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
Really? An incest joke? Is that the best you have?:rolleyes5:
Considering that his other choices were more tired crack ho references or more of his wishful fantasies about people's wives and mothers, the answer's obvious! :lol:
Then again, I'm surprised he didn't try bringing your kids into his stupid joke. Strangely, he was quite proud of himself when he brought my daughter into one of his personal attacks -- as sure a sign as any that he's run out of material, not that he had much to begin with! :out:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
Really? An incest joke? Is that the best you have?:rolleyes5:
I meant "relative" as in theory of relativity or a buffalo butt is relatively beautiful compared to your face.
Never said anything about incest, beem swiming in the shallow end of the gene pool again?:1::hand:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
The process is too fast, our eyes are too slow. What the hell is the difference stupid?
Everything, you said our super eyes and brains "weave everything together,
actually the opposite is true.
Our eyes have nothing to do with it, actually, its our brains that cant catch up.
The difference is that you are saying our brains put things together, I say our brains are getting too much info to process and therefore 24 (or 60) frames blur together into a moving picture
Quote:
A progressive picture IN THEORY is more solid. However theory usually fails in the field when actual devices are used. In the field, LCD and Plasmas suffer from motion blur, and slow response times which kills the theory dead. You seem to love to side step this fact.
YOU'RE the one confusing "fact" with theory, a progressive picture is more solid than an interlaced, thats a FACT, wheather or not it looks better than interlaced is an OPINION
Quote:
You are lying again pixeliar. I never EVER mentioned the word cobble, EVER. Aside from your obvious stupidity, your lying has further killed your credibility.
.
If I am wrong on this I apologise but I bet I am not.
One of the things that bothers me about you is calling a "lie" what is an honest mistake (if indeed it is)
Quote:
Oh yeah, your cheap a$$ has had everything under the sun. Next you will be telling us you invented the internet. Your 60" was probably the cheap model with 7" CRT's.
Yeah my cheap "ass" had a lot of gear, and if I had it to do over I would have held onto my stuff longer, almost went broke changing things all the time
RECEIVERS
Realistic (1) Denon (2) pioneer (1) sony (1) yamaha (2) integra (1)
Integrated amps
Pioneer (1)
SPEAKERS (SETS)
OPTIMUS (2) Genesis (1) bose (1) advent (new not old) (1) B&W (2) klipsch (1)
SUBS
jbl (1) klipsch (1) yamaha (2) B&W (2)
MONITORS
SONY (5) SAMSUNG (2) vizio (1) mitshibushi (1) magnavox (1) zenith (1) toshiba (1)
panasonic (1) rca (1)
CD PLAYERS (sorry, no supercomputer available)
TURNTABLES
pioneer (1) realistic (1) technics (2)
VCRS
THREE SVHS, a zillion VHS, including a 500$ sony pro vcr bought in 94
DVD players
panasonic (2) one a six hundred dvdaudio toshiba (1) samsung (1) sony (2) (incld a recorder)
STANDS
they invented MDF to save a rainfiorest from my ass
REMOTES
PRONTO (1) 500 bucks MARANTZ rc2000 mkII (1) 230 bucks SONY touchpad 200bucks
This is a SAMPLE at least
Considering 9" CRT's cost ten grand yeah you're right, but there is NOTHING
ABOUT MITSHUBISHI that is cheap
They made some bad turns, which is why they are rarely mentioned on this board
(no plasma or LCD) but they make great sets
Quote:
My television meets SMPTE standards for light output on a 65" screen with no problem at all even with 1440p test signals. The Sony G90 meets SMPTE standards on a 300" screen with no problem at all with 1080p signals. HD CRT's are used in every mastering house in Hollywood. So where is your proof of compromise?
No "compromise", you just need a dark room to watch one in
Quote:
Two stacked projectors are only used for screen sizes larger than 300". Tell the whole story pixelidiot.
the whole story (besides the "hole" in your head) is that twin projectors were common in
a lot of installs, not just 300".
But thats ancient history now, now most just use a DLP or LCD, a DLP projector
from circuit city can easily match one of the older "crt" dinosaurs.
even an old burnout like GM knows this, why are you having so much trouble with it?
Spent a tad too much on stuff that got obsolete a bit too fast?:1:
Quote:
You have a real problem with presenting the WHOLE picture. You put out bits and pieces of a point without regards to the other side of the equation. One deminsional points are useless when discussing complex issues. Generalization are also not helpful because you are not addressing the fact that internal or external processing can be used to mitigate artifacts that are inherent to any visual device.
Mitigate but not get rid of entirely.
You can engineer the hell outta screen doors on a submarine but the basic idea
you are starting out with is flawed.
You start out in the wrong direction you will always wind up in the wrong place.
And the "complex" argument is something a lot hide behind.
A LOT OF ELECTRONIC processes are actually quite simple, making them work requires a lot of gear sometimes.
CRT is a dead technology, the way business works they will be used until they are so totally gone they arent worth keeping, doesnt mean they are optimum.
I have lived with these beasts and they have served me well, but there is just a better
way of showing pictures now, and like the gramophone and teh eight track they are history
there are just better ways of showing a video than solid glass vaccume "hernia inducers"
that are dangerous, expensive and realitivly short lived :1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrhymeammo
Statement above, was that directed for my attention? If so, please explain, Do I need to read up on your RX-3800 thread? I'm not quite following you here.
JRA
Didn't somebody already tell you to get over yourself JRA? If I had a specific comment or concern with you I'd have PM'ed you.
-
Wow. The heat is really picking up around here.
LJ? Got anymore of that popcorn?
Nevermind. I'll just throw some kernels on my computer.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
I meant "relative" as in theory of relativity or a buffalo butt is relatively beautiful compared to your face.
Never said anything about incest, beem swiming in the shallow end of the gene pool again?:1::hand:
Umm, no I re-read your original post. You said that you and Rich were not "relatives", "Like YOU and YOUR WIFE were when you started dating.".
Like I said. An Incest Joke? Apparently you don't even realize when you are making jokes now.
So who's on first?
And GM, pass the popcorn. But wash your hands first. I don't know where they have been.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
And GM, pass the popcorn. But wash your hands first. I don't know where they have been.
I do. You won't need the salt or the butter.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Everything, you said our super eyes and brains "weave everything together,
actually the opposite is true.
Our eyes have nothing to do with it, actually, its our brains that cant catch up.
The difference is that you are saying our brains put things together, I say our brains are getting too much info to process and therefore 24 (or 60) frames blur together into a moving picture
This statement does not make any sense at all, but this is pretty typical of you. Can you explain the difference between the process is too fast for our eyes and brain to detect, and our brain is too slow to detect. They are just too different ways of saying the same thing. Geeze, you must have been at the top of the 1764 graduating class of hickville high.
Quote:
YOU'RE the one confusing "fact" with theory, a progressive picture is more solid than an interlaced, thats a FACT, wheather or not it looks better than interlaced is an OPINION
I am afraid when you are talking about moving images, SOLID is not a very descriptive word. Study after study has proven that a normal viewing distances most folks cannot detect any differences between 1080p and 1080i well done. So your "fact" is in an imaginary space between your ears where your brain is supposed to be. .
Quote:
If I am wrong on this I apologise but I bet I am not.
One of the things that bothers me about you is calling a "lie" what is an honest mistake (if indeed it is)
Honest mistake?? You have got to be kidding me. An honest mistake would state "I think he said cobbled together", not "cobbled together" in a very definitive fashion. You lied, and you don't want to admit you did so you can maintain some fake illusion that you are never wrong. Well, your a$$ was wrong, so there goes your little illusion.
Quote:
Yeah my cheap "ass" had a lot of gear, and if I had it to do over I would have held onto my stuff longer, almost went broke changing things all the time
RECEIVERS
Realistic (1) Denon (2) pioneer (1) sony (1) yamaha (2) integra (1)
Integrated amps
Pioneer (1)
SPEAKERS (SETS)
OPTIMUS (2) Genesis (1) bose (1) advent (new not old) (1) B&W (2) klipsch (1)
SUBS
jbl (1) klipsch (1) yamaha (2) B&W (2)
MONITORS
SONY (5) SAMSUNG (2) vizio (1) mitshibushi (1) magnavox (1) zenith (1) toshiba (1)
panasonic (1) rca (1)
CD PLAYERS (sorry, no supercomputer available)
TURNTABLES
pioneer (1) realistic (1) technics (2)
VCRS
THREE SVHS, a zillion VHS, including a 500$ sony pro vcr bought in 94
DVD players
panasonic (2) one a six hundred dvdaudio toshiba (1) samsung (1) sony (2) (incld a recorder)
STANDS
they invented MDF to save a rainfiorest from my ass
REMOTES
PRONTO (1) 500 bucks MARANTZ rc2000 mkII (1) 230 bucks SONY touchpad 200bucks
This is a SAMPLE at least
This is mighty impressive for a dumpster diver. Imagine, going broke purchasing low end equipment. I guess this is the best a failed janitor can do. Did you sell your soul to the devil to pay for it?
Quote:
Considering 9" CRT's cost ten grand yeah you're right, but there is NOTHING
ABOUT MITSHUBISHI that is cheap
They made some bad turns, which is why they are rarely mentioned on this board
(no plasma or LCD) but they make great sets
You are right, it probably wasn't cheap to you since you equate performance so closely with price. But let's face the music old one, anything Mitsubishi produced below their 65" RPTV with 9" guns was compromised to meet a price point. The performance difference between their 65" with 9" CRT's and the 60" with 7" CRT's was as wide as the pacific ocean. So IMO, its cheap.
Quote:
No "compromise", you just need a dark room to watch one in
So what. That is not a compromise, its a necessity, just like it is in the movie theater. What is a compromise is that inability of fixed panels to reproduce the SMPTE color gamut accurately. What is a compromise is the inability of fixed panel to reproduce shadow detail. What is a compromise is pixels burning out, much like what has happened with your brain.
Quote:
the whole story (besides the "hole" in your head) is that twin projectors were common in
a lot of installs, not just 300".
Stacked projectors has never been common, so please do overstate your point, or to put it plainly, don't lie liar. The cost of two projectors, and the complexity of lining them up prevents this from being a common installation. The only reason to stack two projectors is because of poor pre-install planning, or the desire to have a much larger screen than the projector can throw light on. If you plan out your installation properly, and pick the proper projector for the installation, there is no need to stack.
Quote:
But thats ancient history now, now most just use a DLP or LCD, a DLP projector
from circuit city can easily match one of the older "crt" dinosaurs.
A very uniformed comment, especially coming from a person with absolutely no experience with CRT projection systems aside from a cheap RPTV.
Quote:
even an old burnout like GM knows this, why are you having so much trouble with it?
Spent a tad too much on stuff that got obsolete a bit too fast?:1:
I would consider you a burnout, I consider GM a Good Mercedes. Obsolete means unuseful, there is nothing unuseful about high end CRT projection systems, especially since they outperform fixed panels in just about every area. The only fixed panel that can outperform a CRT based system, is the Panasonic 150" plasma that is spec'd at 2160p. You would be hard pressed to find any plasma or LCD that can come close to competing with a Sony G-90, Maquee 9500, or a Barco 1209 or cine 9 projectors(or even my display) with can accurately reproduce 2500x2000 lines or resolution ACCURATELY. No panel except one in the world can do that.
Quote:
Mitigate but not get rid of entirely.
If you make it invisible to the eye, there is no need to mitigate in entirely is there?
Quote:
You can engineer the hell outta screen doors on a submarine but the basic idea
you are starting out with is flawed.
You start out in the wrong direction you will always wind up in the wrong place.
So you are saying the very system we have built our broadcast technology on is flawed? If that is the case, how does a flat panel change the equation. It doesn't, the only thing it does is take up less space, and that is it. It offers no performance advantage that is for sure. Many panels out there cannot even reproduce a 1080p image accurately, and testing by a few mags has proven this.
Quote:
And the "complex" argument is something a lot hide behind.
Simplicity is an arguement that stupid people like yourself hide behind because they lack the brain compacity to understand the complex.
Quote:
A LOT OF ELECTRONIC processes are actually quite simple, making them work requires a lot of gear sometimes.
You must like to see your nonsense on this page huh?
Quote:
CRT is a dead technology, the way business works they will be used until they are so totally gone they arent worth keeping, doesnt mean they are optimum.
I guess this is the same dead that plasma has suffered huh? Your brain is dead, and that is the only thing that has suffered any death. CRT based projection systems has enough market that folks are rebuilding, refurbishing, and reselling them everyday.
Quote:
I have lived with these beasts and they have served me well, but there is just a better
way of showing pictures now, and like the gramophone and teh eight track they are history
there are just better ways of showing a video than solid glass vaccume "hernia inducers"
that are dangerous, expensive and realitivly short lived :1:
This sounds more like a description of yourself rather than technology. What makes this comment so laughable is that there isn't but one panel in the world that can outperform the projectors I mentioned above. Just one. Once again you are equating convience with performace. I would much rather have a giant beast that can do black, can accurately reproduce 2500x2000 lines of information, meet SMTPE standards for color reproduction, and you can adjust the scanning rate to increase its resolution than have something that I can hang on a wall but cannot accurately reproduce that panels spec'd resolution, doesn't do black, and suffers from motion blur and slow reponse times. For me convience never trumps performance. Your standards are much lower than mine, that is for sure.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
This statement does not make any sense at all, but this is pretty typical of you. Can you explain the difference between the process is too fast for our eyes and brain to detect, and our brain is too slow to detect. They are just too different ways of saying the same thing. Geeze, you must have been at the top of the 1764 graduating class of hickville high.
They are two different things, in the first instance our brains are too slow to discern
the seperate frames and they run together and make motion.
If our brains were too "fast" then we'd be sitting there waiting for all of teh frames to get there and they would be as what they are seperate frames.
I knew you were dumb, just not short yellow schoolbus dumb
Quote:
I am afraid when you are talking about moving images, SOLID is not a very descriptive word. Study after study has proven that a normal viewing distances most folks cannot detect any differences between 1080p and 1080i well done. So your "fact" is in an imaginary space between your ears where your brain is supposed to be. .
I can.
And you say MY standards are low
Quote:
Honest mistake?? You have got to be kidding me. An honest mistake would state "I think he said cobbled together", not "cobbled together" in a very definitive fashion. You lied, and you don't want to admit you did so you can maintain some fake illusion that you are never wrong. Well, your a$$ was wrong, so there goes your little illusion.
I think your brains are "cobbled" together
Quote:
This is mighty impressive for a dumpster diver. Imagine, going broke purchasing low end equipment. I guess this is the best a failed janitor can do. Did you sell your soul to the devil to pay for it?
No, it was what was left over after I spent my money on something more important, the people in my life. I have my priorities, something you dont have to worry about since most probably wont get near you
Quote:
You are right, it probably wasn't cheap to you since you equate performance so closely with price. But let's face the music old one, anything Mitsubishi produced below their 65" RPTV with 9" guns was compromised to meet a price point. The performance difference between their 65" with 9" CRT's and the 60" with 7" CRT's was as wide as the pacific ocean. So IMO, its cheap.
EVERYTHING is a compromise to meet a price point.
And performace relative to price is important , if you know anything you'd know THAT
Quote:
So what. That is not a compromise, its a necessity, just like it is in the movie theater. What is a compromise is that inability of fixed panels to reproduce the SMPTE color gamut accurately. What is a compromise is the inability of fixed panel to reproduce shadow detail. What is a compromise is pixels burning out, much like what has happened with your brain.
No, its a result of using a CRT for something for which it was never intended, CRT was
always meant to be a direct view device, they just dont produce enough light to work as a projection device without serious long term problems.
they were a work around because there was nothing besides a film projector to meet the home viewing need.
Now their compromises arent nessesary, and when wall size OLED is in production
it will be the dominant form factor
Quote:
Stacked projectors has never been common, so please do overstate your point, or to put it plainly, don't lie liar. The cost of two projectors, and the complexity of lining them up prevents this from being a common installation. The only reason to stack two projectors is because of poor pre-install planning, or the desire to have a much larger screen than the projector can throw light on. If you plan out your installation properly, and pick the proper projector for the installation, there is no need to stack.
Stacked projectors have been a way for HT types to double the light output of their setup forever, go to the magazine sites and check out the archives.
It becaome more common when HD arrived, since the light output of a HD CRT is much less
Quote:
A very uniformed comment, especially coming from a person with absolutely no experience with CRT projection systems aside from a cheap RPTV.
Thats three cheap projection TV sets, two an HD(samsung and pioneer 47in models) and uncounted experience from various friends, systems at work, etc.
Unless you're over fifty you arent even CLOSE to my "experience" with CRT tech,
starting in the early seventies
Quote:
I would consider you a burnout, I consider GM a Good Mercedes. Obsolete means unuseful, there is nothing unuseful about high end CRT projection systems, especially since they outperform fixed panels in just about every area. The only fixed panel that can outperform a CRT based system, is the Panasonic 150" plasma that is spec'd at 2160p. You would be hard pressed to find any plasma or LCD that can come close to competing with a Sony G-90, Maquee 9500, or a Barco 1209 or cine 9 projectors(or even my display) with can accurately reproduce 2500x2000 lines or resolution ACCURATELY. No panel except one in the world can do that.
Any dlp front projection set will beat the pants off of CRT in brightness, resolution, and most importantly, price.
THE FORM FACTOR that will (and is ) most practical and affordable for most is a DLP,
LCOS (or one of its derivatives) and LCD front projection, while bringing up the rear in q is still quite good.
NOBODY wants a monstrosity sitting in their HT or living room and are willing to put up with the shortcomings in order to acheive miniscule improvements.
If a 5,000 DLP projector will acheive 99% of what a 20,000 CRT can do you'd have to be an idiot to buy the CRT.
AND WHEN SOMETHINGS OBSOLETE it means that better is out there, you can keep using the old stuff, sure, but sooner or later it will be GONE
Quote:
If you make it invisible to the eye, there is no need to mitigate in entirely is there?
GLAD YOU CONCEDE MY POINT
Quote:
So you are saying the very system we have built our broadcast technology on is flawed? If that is the case, how does a flat panel change the equation. It doesn't, the only thing it does is take up less space, and that is it. It offers no performance advantage that is for sure. Many panels out there cannot even reproduce a 1080p image accurately, and testing by a few mags has proven this.
your brains are flawed.
of course our broadcast tech is "flawed" , its built by human beings, however it does quite good most of the time.
Our system used to be built around CRT tech, it was intended that that was what we'd use to translate electronic signals into light.
But that isnt the case anymore.
Interlaced broadcasting was an ingenious solution to not having enough space to put an entire signal through at once, but it was a compromise.
Today we still use it for the same reason but in a different way, instead of putting together
two fields to make one interlaced frame we are putting together two frames to make one
progressive frame
Quote:
Simplicity is an arguement that stupid people like yourself hide behind because they lack the brain compacity to understand the complex.
More philosophy from the three stooges school of thought.
The first two years of school in electronics was frustrating, we learned about oscilators,
components like capacitors, various solid state and even tube devices.
We never touched a TV.
Then the first week of the third year a schematic of a tv set was laid out, we were surprized to see that we understood it perfectly.
Our teacher said we had to learn the underlying , more simple concepts in order to put them together.
This is the way I still learn things, break them down to component parts
It is the only way to learn anything.
An atom bomb is simply playing pool at the subatomic level,
making it happen is whats complicated
Quote:
You must like to see your nonsense on this page huh?
What I hate to see is your childish nonsense on this page because I simply can't resist the urge to put a simpering moron with delusions of grandeur in his place.
I know my limitations and place in the universe, just wish you'd quit trying to stand on your hind legs and exceed yours
Quote:
I guess this is the same dead that plasma has suffered huh? Your brain is dead, and that is the only thing that has suffered any death. CRT based projection systems has enough market that folks are rebuilding, refurbishing, and reselling them everyday.
Which proves my point, eventually there will be nothing to "refurbish", this is because the form factor is DEAD.
In the future they will view this as we view a horse and buggy, while they watch their
oled screens painted on a wall using nanotech to arrange the elements
Quote:
This sounds more like a description of yourself rather than technology. What makes this comment so laughable is that there isn't but one panel in the world that can outperform the projectors I mentioned above. Just one. Once again you are equating convience with performace. I would much rather have a giant beast that can do black, can accurately reproduce 2500x2000 lines of information, meet SMTPE standards for color reproduction, and you can adjust the scanning rate to increase its resolution than have something that I can hang on a wall but cannot accurately reproduce that panels spec'd resolution, doesn't do black, and suffers from motion blur and slow reponse times. For me convience never trumps performance. Your standards are much lower than mine, that is for sure.
None of this is relevant to 99% of the population, and even people in the field would have trouble discerning the difference between a five grand DLP and a fifty grand CRT
set.
Well, there is one difference, they still make and sell front projector dlp in industrial quanity
something that will never happen again with CRT, no new CRT factories will be built.
CRT is quite gooid, it should be with armies of engineers working on it for a century,
but with all of that effort it should be better
Truth is that CRT was a nessesary evil, we used it because there was no choice.
Now theres a choice.
People who saw the first cars procclaimed them a "fad" because a good horse
could outrun them. THAT DIDNT LAST LONG.
My standard are "lower" than yours?Not really, I JUST LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD,
and like most cant afford thousands for a miniscule increase in performance that my fifty year old eyes probably cant detect anyway, when a 20 year old would have a problem doing so.
And this is considering that CRT is better, which it isnt actually.
Face it talky, NOBODY is working on this tech anymore, its in the attic of the human race in practicallity if not quite reality just yet.
GET OVER IT.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
Didn't somebody already tell you to get over yourself JRA? If I had a specific comment or concern with you I'd have PM'ed you.
I was simply not sure who you were writing to. Nothing more, nothing less.
I can careless about what GM says to me. He has nothing to offer for what I'm looking for on this site. I have nothing against him at all. Just not interested. If he was posting on your behalf, telling me to get over myself, then "Fair Enough". I'll just move on like the way GM had suggested.
Peace,
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrhymeammo
I can careless about what GM says to me. He has nothing to offer for what I'm looking for on this site. I have nothing against him at all. Just not interested. ,
Ditto....
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
They are two different things, in the first instance our brains are too slow to discern
the seperate frames and they run together and make motion.
If our brains were too "fast" then we'd be sitting there waiting for all of teh frames to get there and they would be as what they are seperate frames.
I knew you were dumb, just not short yellow schoolbus dumb
I didn't say our brain was too fast stupid, I said the PROCESS was too fast for our eye/brain mechansim. And you say I am dumb, you can't even read foo.
Quote:
I can.
And you say MY standards are low
Yes I did, and I am right.
Quote:
I think your brains are "cobbled" together
You do not know how to think, and that is why you make these kinds of stupid statements.
Quote:
No, it was what was left over after I spent my money on something more important, the people in my life. I have my priorities, something you dont have to worry about since most probably wont get near you
Your idiotness, you do not know how people interact with me, you don't know me from Adam's house cat. I think its rather ironic that a admitted dumpster diver says he has priorities. What, finding the cheapest trash he can find? Well, I hope you found yourself.
Quote:
EVERYTHING is a compromise to meet a price point.
And performace relative to price is important , if you know anything you'd know THAT
Your thinking is too mass market. In the high end, products are designed for performance first, and the price is purely secondary. In the mass market its the opposite. A price point is established, and the product is created to meet that price point. Once again you are missing the detail of the discussion.
Quote:
No, its a result of using a CRT for something for which it was never intended, CRT was
always meant to be a direct view device, they just dont produce enough light to work as a projection device without serious long term problems.
This is a laughable statement if I ever saw one. Can you explain what serious long term problems will exist? You have never owned a front projection system, so how do you know what issue could pop up? I have owned a Sony G-90 for the last five years, I have not had a single problem from it. Other folks have had their front projection systems for close to ten years and have had no problems. You are stinking up the room with your bull$hit.
Quote:
they were a work around because there was nothing besides a film projector to meet the home viewing need.
Now their compromises arent nessesary, and when wall size OLED is in production
it will be the dominant form factor
Rediculous. Flat panels are the compromise. They sacrifice performance levels already acheived by high end CRT's(and lower end models as well) for the convience of hanging it on a wall. Flat panels do not do black, the do not reproduce the color gamut at SMPTE spec's, the cannot reproduce the grey scale accurately, they have poor response times and motion blur. What you consider is the compromise does do black, can reproduce the color gamut at SMPTE spec's, can do the grey scale accurately, does not suffer from motion blur, and has a instantaneous response. And please do not talk to me about something that has not even acheived a 20" screen size yet.
Quote:
Stacked projectors have been a way for HT types to double the light output of their setup forever, go to the magazine sites and check out the archives.
It becaome more common when HD arrived, since the light output of a HD CRT is much less
Once again you are lying. I am an installer and have been so for more than 15 years. I can count on one hand the amount of installs I have done that required stacked projectors. You talk like this is the norm, and it isn't. Lie number two, HD CRT have less light than analog CRT's, more bull$hit. The Sony G-90 was built in 1997 In 1997 HDTV was almost non existant, but the G-90, the Barco 1209, and the electrohome 9500 ultra could reproduce 1080p back then. The could put out 1300 lumens in 1997 and they can put out 1300 lumens in 2008. So they could do better than HDTV back then, and 1300 lumens back then, so just when did the light output drop? Where are my boots, dude you are loaded full of cow plop.
Quote:
Thats three cheap projection TV sets, two an HD(samsung and pioneer 47in models) and uncounted experience from various friends, systems at work, etc.
Unless you're over fifty you arent even CLOSE to my "experience" with CRT tech,
starting in the early seventies
Your "experience" has not translated to "knowledge", so it is essentially worthless.
Quote:
Any dlp front projection set will beat the pants off of CRT in brightness, resolution, and most importantly, price.
Lie number three. I know of no DLP that can do 2500x2000(essentially 2000p)lines of information. Zero. Price is only a issue for those who count pennies. I treasure performance first, price second. DLP's suffer the same problems as all fixed panel devices do, cannot do black, cannot do greyscale, cannot reproduce the HD color gamut accurately. You get what you pay for. Brightness does not matter when you cannot do so many other things correctly.
Quote:
THE FORM FACTOR that will (and is ) most practical and affordable for most is a DLP,
LCOS (or one of its derivatives) and LCD front projection, while bringing up the rear in q is still quite good.
This is the thinking of the a "good enough" person, not a "give me the best" person. DLP, LCD, and plasma are all a step backwards from my current "dinosaur" CRT RPTV. Not one of these technologies can do what my current RPTV does. I don't do good enough.
Quote:
NOBODY wants a monstrosity sitting in their HT or living room and are willing to put up with the shortcomings in order to acheive miniscule improvements.
Well there must be alot of nobodies out there, because Curt Palmer who sells refurbished RPTV and front projection systems is doing booming business right now, in spite of the fact that they do not make them anymore. When you compare the performance of the typical high end projector, the flat panel is the one with the shortcomings. And you would have to own one to say its improvements are miniscule. Of course because you have always purchased cheap crap, I am sure a compromised flat panel like the vizio is an improvement for you.
Quote:
If a 5,000 DLP projector will acheive 99% of what a 20,000 CRT can do you'd have to be an idiot to buy the CRT.
AND WHEN SOMETHINGS OBSOLETE it means that better is out there, you can keep using the old stuff, sure, but sooner or later it will be GONE
There is a flaw in this logic, even the best plasma, DLP or LCD cannot even come close to the performance of the Sony G-90. All you have to do is look at test spec's and one can clearly see this. You are just one bucket of lies old dude. You are just like Nightliar, will lie just for the sake of doing so. CRT's are not obsolete, they are just too big and require alot of maintainence. The only benefit a flat panel offers you over a CRT is it takes up less space. Otherwise it is a compromise when compared to a quality CRT based projector.
Quote:
GLAD YOU CONCEDE MY POINT
Sorry but motion blur is visible. The effects of a slow response time are visible. The inability to do below black is visible. The inability to reproduce an accurate HD color gamut is visible. So the only point that I will concede is that you are not very bright to be so old.
Quote:
your brains are flawed.
of course our broadcast tech is "flawed" , its built by human beings, however it does quite good most of the time.
So how does a flat panel correct this? It doesn't, and because of its drawbacks, it makes a compromised system even worse.
Quote:
Our system used to be built around CRT tech, it was intended that that was what we'd use to translate electronic signals into light.
But that isnt the case anymore.
Interlaced broadcasting was an ingenious solution to not having enough space to put an entire signal through at once, but it was a compromise.
Since we still have a interlaced based broadcasting system, how did the change to a digital system improved the system?. A digitally based interlaced system is no better than a analog based interlaced system. It is a more complex system because digitally based signal do not travel as far as analog based transmission systems, so more repeaters are required which makes the entire system more complex.
Quote:
Today we still use it for the same reason but in a different way, instead of putting together
two fields to make one interlaced frame we are putting together two frames to make one
progressive frame
That would explain 720p, but how about 1080i? In OTA broadcasting 720p is the minority, and 1080i is the majority.
Quote:
More philosophy from the three stooges school of thought.
The first two years of school in electronics was frustrating, we learned about oscilators,
components like capacitors, various solid state and even tube devices.
We never touched a TV.
If that is the case, then how can you use the words of your electronics teacher if you never touched the subject? It is pretty obvious they didn't teach you about TV
Quote:
Then the first week of the third year a schematic of a tv set was laid out, we were surprized to see that we understood it perfectly.
Our teacher said we had to learn the underlying , more simple concepts in order to put them together.
This is the way I still learn things, break them down to component parts
It is the only way to learn anything.
Unfortunately when you break them down, some of the little pieces are getting lost, so your ability to create a whole picture, a coherent stream of logic is completely compromised. So this explain why you skip the detail and the big picture. There is none.
Quote:
An atom bomb is simply playing pool at the subatomic level,
making it happen is whats complicated
This is pretty deep for a person that is as deep as a pool of spit on a sidewalk. Do you borrow this from sombody?
Quote:
What I hate to see is your childish nonsense on this page because I simply can't resist the urge to put a simpering moron with delusions of grandeur in his place.
You must be saying this in a mirror.
Quote:
I know my limitations and place in the universe, just wish you'd quit trying to stand on your hind legs and exceed yours
We all know your limitations. Unfortunately we have to read about them everyday on this board. Wishing is for kids, are you starting your second childhood pixelneck?
Quote:
Which proves my point, eventually there will be nothing to "refurbish", this is because the form factor is DEAD.
While they do not make CRT based television anymore, there are plenty of parts to continue refurbishing high end projection systems for years to come. Didn't you say that plasma is dead? Well, it doesn't look dead to me as long as they continue to make them. As long as I can purchase a refurbished or upgraded quality CRT projector, then it ain't dead yet.
Quote:
In the future they will view this as we view a horse and buggy, while they watch their
oled screens painted on a wall using nanotech to arrange the elements
They said we would have flying cars by now, but we don't. So I'll just wait until we can view this horse and buggy arguement when the reality sets in. You'll be dead by then though.
Quote:
None of this is relevant to 99% of the population, and even people in the field would have trouble discerning the difference between a five grand DLP and a fifty grand CRT
set.
There is no proof of this statement at all. I do not like so called facts that are pulled out of thin air with no proof.
Quote:
Well, there is one difference, they still make and sell front projector dlp in industrial quanity
something that will never happen again with CRT, no new CRT factories will be built.
The chinese makes alot of things in quantity, that does not make them better. Most things made in quantity usually lack quality anyway.
Quote:
CRT is quite gooid, it should be with armies of engineers working on it for a century,
but with all of that effort it should be better
Truth is that CRT was a nessesary evil, we used it because there was no choice.
Now theres a choice.
Flat panels are also a necessary evil. They were invented for the sake of the WAF, and not because they are a inherently better technology. I find it rather ironic that a projector that is 11 years old can outperform a "new" technology. Things that are digital are not always better than things that are analog. A just becuase something can be hung on a wall, does not make it better than something that takes up alot of space.
Quote:
People who saw the first cars procclaimed them a "fad" because a good horse
could outrun them. THAT DIDNT LAST LONG.
I wasn't around when car first got here, so I do not know what folks proclaimed. You were probably around though.
Quote:
My standard are "lower" than yours?Not really, I JUST LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD,
and like most cant afford thousands for a miniscule increase in performance that my fifty year old eyes probably cant detect anyway, when a 20 year old would have a problem doing so.
Your standards are lower than mine. I treasure performance over price. You treasure price over performance. A vizio flat panel would NEVER grace my hometheater because it cannot exceed the performance of my current dinosaur CRT RPTV. My eyes have absolutely no problem seeing a significant performance increase over a flat panel. You would have a problem because you cannot recognized quality of you saw it. Its all about price to you. Neither of my twenty year old sons have any problem seeing the improvement of my CRT based RPTV over the LCD panels in their rooms. That is why they are sitting in front of my set more than they sit in front of theirs.
Quote:
And this is considering that CRT is better, which it isnt actually.
Face it talky, NOBODY is working on this tech anymore, its in the attic of the human race in practicallity if not quite reality just yet.
GET OVER IT.:1:
Well Curt Palmer is still working on them, he is somebody. I know at least 10 other folks that work on them as well. Curt Palmer is always working on improvments to high end projectors, even if Sony or Ampro aren't. Nothing is not in the attic until there is not one left in use. There are millions still in use.
I really like the name Sir Talky. Its funny, much like pixelidiot, pixelpuss, pixeless, and my personal favorite because it so aptly describes you...burntoutpixel.
Looking forward to the next round old fart.
-
I don't know how you cope with it...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
Wow. The heat is really picking up around here.
LJ? Got anymore of that popcorn?
Nevermind. I'll just throw some kernels on my computer.
Nah this is gonna take awhile......I'm 'bout to throw some ribs on the grill :)
**lights grill, cracks open a brew, sits in chair, DANG!!!!, gets up..turns on outdoor speakers, sits back in chair**
-
(GM turns up the volume, pops open a beer, and has a seat)
Nice night huh LJ? Have you played Burnout in Paradise yet?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
(GM turns up the volume, pops open a beer, and has a seat)
(E-Stat warms up the tubes, pours a glass of wine and reads latest installment)
Hi guys. Anyone want to venture how many posts this thread will go? 150? 200?
Say TtT, I've got a friend who replaced his Barco projector with a new Sony HD unit (not sure what model) for his 100" screen. Very nice. How are the new Sony units?
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by L.J.
Nah this is gonna take awhile......I'm 'bout to throw some ribs on the grill :)
**lights grill, cracks open a brew, sits in chair, DANG!!!!, gets up..turns on outdoor speakers, sits back in chair**
Huh??? Ribs??? What??? Huh... who... what... where? :idea:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
(E-Stat warms up the tubes, pours a glass of wine and reads latest installment)
Hi guys. Anyone want to venture how many posts this thread will go? 150? 200?
Say TtT, I've got a friend who replaced his Barco projector with a new Sony HD unit (not sure what model) for his 100" screen. Very nice. How are the new Sony units?
rw
Yeah, Sir T.
I know...this guy....who's building a new house with a dedicated HT Room and he wants a new projector...nothing fancy, decent value performer etc...can you steer m--er...this guy in the right direction?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I didn't say our brain was too fast stupid, I said the PROCESS was too fast for our eye/brain mechansim. And you say I am dumb, you can't even read foo.
Yes I did, and I am right.
You do not know how to think, and that is why you make these kinds of stupid statements.
Your idiotness, you do not know how people interact with me, you don't know me from Adam's house cat. I think its rather ironic that a admitted dumpster diver says he has priorities. What, finding the cheapest trash he can find? Well, I hope you found yourself.
Your thinking is too mass market. In the high end, products are designed for performance first, and the price is purely secondary. In the mass market its the opposite. A price point is established, and the product is created to meet that price point. Once again you are missing the detail of the discussion.
This is a laughable statement if I ever saw one. Can you explain what serious long term problems will exist? You have never owned a front projection system, so how do you know what issue could pop up? I have owned a Sony G-90 for the last five years, I have not had a single problem from it. Other folks have had their front projection systems for close to ten years and have had no problems. You are stinking up the room with your bull$hit.
Rediculous. Flat panels are the compromise. They sacrifice performance levels already acheived by high end CRT's(and lower end models as well) for the convience of hanging it on a wall. Flat panels do not do black, the do not reproduce the color gamut at SMPTE spec's, the cannot reproduce the grey scale accurately, they have poor response times and motion blur. What you consider is the compromise does do black, can reproduce the color gamut at SMPTE spec's, can do the grey scale accurately, does not suffer from motion blur, and has a instantaneous response. And please do not talk to me about something that has not even acheived a 20" screen size yet.
Once again you are lying. I am an installer and have been so for more than 15 years. I can count on one hand the amount of installs I have done that required stacked projectors. You talk like this is the norm, and it isn't. Lie number two, HD CRT have less light than analog CRT's, more bull$hit. The Sony G-90 was built in 1997 In 1997 HDTV was almost non existant, but the G-90, the Barco 1209, and the electrohome 9500 ultra could reproduce 1080p back then. The could put out 1300 lumens in 1997 and they can put out 1300 lumens in 2008. So they could do better than HDTV back then, and 1300 lumens back then, so just when did the light output drop? Where are my boots, dude you are loaded full of cow plop.
Your "experience" has not translated to "knowledge", so it is essentially worthless.
Lie number three. I know of no DLP that can do 2500x2000(essentially 2000p)lines of information. Zero. Price is only a issue for those who count pennies. I treasure performance first, price second. DLP's suffer the same problems as all fixed panel devices do, cannot do black, cannot do greyscale, cannot reproduce the HD color gamut accurately. You get what you pay for. Brightness does not matter when you cannot do so many other things correctly.
This is the thinking of the a "good enough" person, not a "give me the best" person. DLP, LCD, and plasma are all a step backwards from my current "dinosaur" CRT RPTV. Not one of these technologies can do what my current RPTV does. I don't do good enough.
Well there must be alot of nobodies out there, because Curt Palmer who sells refurbished RPTV and front projection systems is doing booming business right now, in spite of the fact that they do not make them anymore. When you compare the performance of the typical high end projector, the flat panel is the one with the shortcomings. And you would have to own one to say its improvements are miniscule. Of course because you have always purchased cheap crap, I am sure a compromised flat panel like the vizio is an improvement for you.
There is a flaw in this logic, even the best plasma, DLP or LCD cannot even come close to the performance of the Sony G-90. All you have to do is look at test spec's and one can clearly see this. You are just one bucket of lies old dude. You are just like Nightliar, will lie just for the sake of doing so. CRT's are not obsolete, they are just too big and require alot of maintainence. The only benefit a flat panel offers you over a CRT is it takes up less space. Otherwise it is a compromise when compared to a quality CRT based projector.
Sorry but motion blur is visible. The effects of a slow response time are visible. The inability to do below black is visible. The inability to reproduce an accurate HD color gamut is visible. So the only point that I will concede is that you are not very bright to be so old.
So how does a flat panel correct this? It doesn't, and because of its drawbacks, it makes a compromised system even worse.
Since we still have a interlaced based broadcasting system, how did the change to a digital system improved the system?. A digitally based interlaced system is no better than a analog based interlaced system. It is a more complex system because digitally based signal do not travel as far as analog based transmission systems, so more repeaters are required which makes the entire system more complex.
That would explain 720p, but how about 1080i? In OTA broadcasting 720p is the minority, and 1080i is the majority.
If that is the case, then how can you use the words of your electronics teacher if you never touched the subject? It is pretty obvious they didn't teach you about TV
Unfortunately when you break them down, some of the little pieces are getting lost, so your ability to create a whole picture, a coherent stream of logic is completely compromised. So this explain why you skip the detail and the big picture. There is none.
This is pretty deep for a person that is as deep as a pool of spit on a sidewalk. Do you borrow this from sombody?
You must be saying this in a mirror.
We all know your limitations. Unfortunately we have to read about them everyday on this board. Wishing is for kids, are you starting your second childhood pixelneck?
While they do not make CRT based television anymore, there are plenty of parts to continue refurbishing high end projection systems for years to come. Didn't you say that plasma is dead? Well, it doesn't look dead to me as long as they continue to make them. As long as I can purchase a refurbished or upgraded quality CRT projector, then it ain't dead yet.
They said we would have flying cars by now, but we don't. So I'll just wait until we can view this horse and buggy arguement when the reality sets in. You'll be dead by then though.
There is no proof of this statement at all. I do not like so called facts that are pulled out of thin air with no proof.
The chinese makes alot of things in quantity, that does not make them better. Most things made in quantity usually lack quality anyway.
Flat panels are also a necessary evil. They were invented for the sake of the WAF, and not because they are a inherently better technology. I find it rather ironic that a projector that is 11 years old can outperform a "new" technology. Things that are digital are not always better than things that are analog. A just becuase something can be hung on a wall, does not make it better than something that takes up alot of space.
I wasn't around when car first got here, so I do not know what folks proclaimed. You were probably around though.
Your standards are lower than mine. I treasure performance over price. You treasure price over performance. A vizio flat panel would NEVER grace my hometheater because it cannot exceed the performance of my current dinosaur CRT RPTV. My eyes have absolutely no problem seeing a significant performance increase over a flat panel. You would have a problem because you cannot recognized quality of you saw it. Its all about price to you. Neither of my twenty year old sons have any problem seeing the improvement of my CRT based RPTV over the LCD panels in their rooms. That is why they are sitting in front of my set more than they sit in front of theirs.
Well Curt Palmer is still working on them, he is somebody. I know at least 10 other folks that work on them as well. Curt Palmer is always working on improvments to high end projectors, even if Sony or Ampro aren't. Nothing is not in the attic until there is not one left in use. There are millions still in use.
I really like the name Sir Talky. Its funny, much like pixelidiot, pixelpuss, pixeless, and my personal favorite because it so aptly describes you...burntoutpixel.
Looking forward to the next round old fart.
I'M NOT.
LETS SEEEE...
I could waste a few dozen minutes of my life arguing with a simpering moron about a technology that already has one foot in the grave and another on the banana peel,
but I think I'll just pop another beer instead.
IT took decades and millions of dollars but they finally taught a ape to understand
a few basic words, but thats it.
The limitations of the ape means that he will only do so good.
AND you can fiddle with old CRT tubes all you like, I HAVE A LIFE.
And no matter how much you try you will still wind up with tech that was finalized
and presented during the late 20's.
You will NEVER get phosper to produce enough light to compete with the new projectors,
and 2'000p is around the corner.
If I were you I'd be stockpiling those tubes, they will soon be in short supply.
Good news, like any obsolete tech they will sell CHEAP.
In a few years they will be gone completely, sure people are still using them, my folks still use a Sony 32in SDTV. Cant get one today.
You're like those laserdisc crazies who said DVD was a fad when it first came out.
DVD wasnt as good as laser true, but it is now, and it swept over laser like the red seas over the pharoes army.
You say you install stuff? That explains a lot.
Carrying a note on some old dinosaurs in the back room?
Well, whatever, you , like the ape in the analogy above will only be able to understand so much.
And CRT will only be able to do so much.
And I win , btw, so why keep arguing?
Why do I win? Check out the number of CRT devices out there, I'll even let you include
the 20in sanyo at Wallfart for 68$.
They are disapearing before your eyes.
I posted a thread to spur conversation, PLASMA IS DEAD, and actually, plasma wont be dead for a few years yet.
BUT CRT is already dead been that way for awhile
SO I WIN :1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
I'M NOT.
LETS SEEEE...
I could waste a few dozen minutes of my life arguing with a simpering moron about a technology that already has one foot in the grave and another on the banana peel,
but I think I'll just pop another beer instead.
Cliche cliche. Based on what you have posted on each subject you have encroached on, you have had far too many beers already.
Quote:
IT took decades and millions of dollars but they finally taught a ape to understand
a few basic words, but thats it.
What does this have to do with anything?
Quote:
The limitations of the ape means that he will only do so good.
AND you can fiddle with old CRT tubes all you like, I HAVE A LIFE.
And no matter how much you try you will still wind up with tech that was finalized
and presented during the late 20's.
It was finalized, presented AND constantly improved upon since the late 20's
Quote:
You will NEVER get phosper to produce enough light to compete with the new projectors,
There is no need to keep up with the new digital projector in terms of brute force brightness. Dummies believe that brightness is the end all. All you have to do is control the amount of ambient light in the room. You do that and no digital projector can compete with a high quality CRT projector. Having to control ambient light is totally necessary if you want a proper contrast ratio, and the ability to see shadow detail. Since you are a "good enough" type, getting proper contrast ratio, and having the ability to see shadow detail does not mean anything to you. So brightness probably means more to you than proper color temperature, following SMPTE standards for color gamut, proper contrast ratio, acheiving proper black levels, and a accurate greyscale.
Quote:
and 2'000p is around the corner.
Yeah, if that corner is your big fat stomach. We will NEVER see 2000p because it is just not practical for home use. It costs an arm and a leg to implement(look at the Panasonic 150" at 2160p), and it requires a huge display device that will not fit in most folks home. You should probably think before you post.
Quote:
If I were you I'd be stockpiling those tubes, they will soon be in short supply.
No need. There are six companies that I can count right off the top of my head that are still making and supplying high end CRT's to folks like Curt Palmer and his company. So while CRT's are no longer manufactured by the majors, several companies have made a business in keeping the millions of CRT projector sold working for years to come.
Quote:
Good news, like any obsolete tech they will sell CHEAP.
In a few years they will be gone completely, sure people are still using them, my folks still use a Sony 32in SDTV. Cant get one today.
Most CRT projectors have gotten cheaper, but the well maintained high end ones are still expensive. They will not be gone completely, and stupid people just like you were saying the same things five years ago.
Quote:
You're like those laserdisc crazies who said DVD was a fad when it first came out.
DVD wasnt as good as laser true, but it is now, and it swept over laser like the red seas over the pharoes army.
I didn't know you in 1997, you weren't even around here then. So how do you know what I said back then? I was just the opposite, I embraced the DVD when I saw its potential, just like I embraced both HD DVD and Bluray when they came into the picture. You seem the one to be out of touch with technology, you talk alot about it, but you don't seem to keep up with the purchase of it. I guess its tough to keep up because getting a real job would interfer with your dumpster diving.
Quote:
You say you install stuff? That explains a lot.
Yeah, it explains why I know far more than you do, and you are almost sixty times older than I am.
Quote:
Carrying a note on some old dinosaurs in the back room?
Actually I can post it right here, and our resident dinosaur Pixy will read it.
Quote:
Well, whatever, you , like the ape in the analogy above will only be able to understand so much.
And you have shown that you understand nothing.
Quote:
And CRT will only be able to do so much.
As so will Plasma, LCD, DLP and any other technology out there.
Quote:
And I win , btw, so why keep arguing?
Why do I win? Check out the number of CRT devices out there, I'll even let you include
the 20in sanyo at Wallfart for 68$.
This is why I say your standards are much lower than mine. There are millions of CRT front projection based projection systems out there, and that does not include the cheap sets you so like to allude to. When you add in the cheap single tube sets, it totally dwarfs the amount of fixed panel sets out there. The only thing you "won" is the chance to take your next breath.
Quote:
They are disapearing before your eyes.
I posted a thread to spur conversation, PLASMA IS DEAD, and actually, plasma wont be dead for a few years yet.
BUT CRT is already dead been that way for awhile
SO I WIN :1:
It is apparent we are talking about different CRT devices. All of your references are aimed at the single gun cheap televisions because you have no experience with any other. You were wrong about plasma, and you are wrong about high end CRT(that is what I am referring to). Neither is dead until you cannot purchase even one of them in the mass market(plasma) or the high end after market(high end CRT's). Just because high end CRT's are off your radar, does not mean they are completely out of the picture. While single gun CRT television are not being sold, high end projection system are still being sold, still being upgraded, and still commanding a fairly high price. So you can keep chiming up like some 2 year old that you won if it makes you feel better. But in reality, only your ignorance has won anything.
Round 4 up next.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Cliche cliche. Based on what you have posted on each subject you have encroached on, you have had far too many beers already.
What does this have to do with anything?
It was finalized, presented AND constantly improved upon since the late 20's
There is no need to keep up with the new digital projector in terms of brute force brightness. Dummies believe that brightness is the end all. All you have to do is control the amount of ambient light in the room. You do that and no digital projector can compete with a high quality CRT projector. Having to control ambient light is totally necessary if you want a proper contrast ratio, and the ability to see shadow detail. Since you are a "good enough" type, getting proper contrast ratio, and having the ability to see shadow detail does not mean anything to you. So brightness probably means more to you than proper color temperature, following SMPTE standards for color gamut, proper contrast ratio, acheiving proper black levels, and a accurate greyscale.
Yeah, if that corner is your big fat stomach. We will NEVER see 2000p because it is just not practical for home use. It costs an arm and a leg to implement(look at the Panasonic 150" at 2160p), and it requires a huge display device that will not fit in most folks home. You should probably think before you post.
No need. There are six companies that I can count right off the top of my head that are still making and supplying high end CRT's to folks like Curt Palmer and his company. So while CRT's are no longer manufactured by the majors, several companies have made a business in keeping the millions of CRT projector sold working for years to come.
Most CRT projectors have gotten cheaper, but the well maintained high end ones are still expensive. They will not be gone completely, and stupid people just like you were saying the same things five years ago.
I didn't know you in 1997, you weren't even around here then. So how do you know what I said back then? I was just the opposite, I embraced the DVD when I saw its potential, just like I embraced both HD DVD and Bluray when they came into the picture. You seem the one to be out of touch with technology, you talk alot about it, but you don't seem to keep up with the purchase of it. I guess its tough to keep up because getting a real job would interfer with your dumpster diving.
Yeah, it explains why I know far more than you do, and you are almost sixty times older than I am.
Actually I can post it right here, and our resident dinosaur Pixy will read it.
And you have shown that you understand nothing.
As so will Plasma, LCD, DLP and any other technology out there.
This is why I say your standards are much lower than mine. There are millions of CRT front projection based projection systems out there, and that does not include the cheap sets you so like to allude to. When you add in the cheap single tube sets, it totally dwarfs the amount of fixed panel sets out there. The only thing you "won" is the chance to take your next breath.
It is apparent we are talking about different CRT devices. All of your references are aimed at the single gun cheap televisions because you have no experience with any other. You were wrong about plasma, and you are wrong about high end CRT(that is what I am referring to). Neither is dead until you cannot purchase even one of them in the mass market(plasma) or the high end after market(high end CRT's). Just because high end CRT's are off your radar, does not mean they are completely out of the picture. While single gun CRT television are not being sold, high end projection system are still being sold, still being upgraded, and still commanding a fairly high price. So you can keep chiming up like some 2 year old that you won if it makes you feel better. But in reality, only your ignorance has won anything.
Round 4 up next.
I'm ignorant?
You dont even understand what an analogy is (look it up)
Those fine people making "CRTs" are scavengers, they are providing for the
replacement market, and its their job to produce replacement parts when its no longer economically feasible for the "majors" to do so.
Ever though that there was a reason that the "majors" arent messing with CRT anymore, genius?
The people making crt replacement tubes will be around until there isnt a market anymore,
or its not even economical for them to make them.
Theres not going to be any more R&D, ANY MORE DESIGNERS working on crt.
only production site set up on third world rice paddies, with labor cost at 1.00 an hour, maybe.
This massive market for front projection CRT exists only in one place, YOUR HEAD.
And that is the only thing that exists in there.
There is a very small market for a HT that has to be viewed in the dark, such a setup is good for one thing only, movies.
Most want to invite people over to watch the game, or are irked at the thought of paying thousands for something with limited use.
The drawbacks of the new type projectors are tiny when compared to the advantages,
very few if any can tell the difference.
So sit in your dark little cave and enjpy yopurself, hope you dont get too lonely:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
I'm ignorant?
You dont even understand what an analogy is (look it up)
You do not know what I understand, and what I don't. Stick to what you know, and that shouldn't be much.
Quote:
Those fine people making "CRTs" are scavengers, they are providing for the
replacement market, and its their job to produce replacement parts when its no longer economically feasible for the "majors" to do so.
It does not matter how it is being done, the fact is, its being done. The whole audio and video world does not revovle around what the majors do. The majors don't support high resolution music on Bluray, but it there.
Quote:
Ever though that there was a reason that the "majors" arent messing with CRT anymore, genius?
The reason the major aren't messing with CRT's anymore (at least the high end) has nothing to do with performance. It the WAF and that is it. If panels where so great, then why are they chasing the high end CRT market in performance of black levels, greyscale tracking, contrast, instantaneous response, and getting the HD color gamut correct? Why does every mastering house in Hollywood and New York use HD CRT displays for mastering high definition titles? That quality that you see on bluray disc is largely because of the high quality of the display they use to master and author titles for release. There are no flat panels being used for mastering, and there is a reason for that.
Quote:
The people making crt replacement tubes will be around until there isnt a market anymore,
or its not even economical for them to make them.
Exactly. But you said it was dead, and it is not, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Quote:
Theres not going to be any more R&D, ANY MORE DESIGNERS working on crt.
only production site set up on third world rice paddies, with labor cost at 1.00 an hour, maybe.
But you are wrong again. Curt Palmer does do R&D on high end CRT projector and RPTV. He has added HDMI inputs to projectors when none had them. He has updated convergence software, provides special color correcting lenses, has created dozens of tweaks, and the list goes on. He has done two upgrades to my G-90 that has noticeably increased performance in several areas. He has essentially taken over where the majors have left off.
Quote:
This massive market for front projection CRT exists only in one place, YOUR HEAD.
And that is the only thing that exists in there.
This is why I say you are ignorant as hell. There is a whole world that exists outside of your dumpster diving life, and you do not know it. However you feel that you can make educated comments on things you know nothing about, and are willing to dismiss what you cannot see in your world. You life is a small as that little brain of yours. I never said there was a "massive" market for high end CRT. I said that it wasn't dead stupid. Only a uneducated fool goes to these kinds of extremes to make a point.
Quote:
There is a very small market for a HT that has to be viewed in the dark, such a setup is good for one thing only, movies.
Or really? What prevents you from watching HD from OTA? What prevents you from watching HD from cable except that it looks like crap? Nothing, its a display device that can be used to watch anything that you want on it. This is the limitations of your thinking, and the crust of your ignorance.
Quote:
Most want to invite people over to watch the game, or are irked at the thought of paying thousands for something with limited use.
I have watch the superbowl with my G-90 so this statement at best is ignorant as hell.
Quote:
The drawbacks of the new type projectors are tiny when compared to the advantages,
very few if any can tell the difference.
So sit in your dark little cave and enjpy yopurself, hope you dont get too lonely:1:
The drawbacks of the newer projectors is tiny when "good enough" is your way of thinking. But us "performance first" folks find the drawback so irritating and hard to miss, we keep our high performance dinosaurs. The day that I can purchase a projector that can do blacker than black on the pluge pattern, the day that motion blur disappears, the day the HD color gamut is reproduced accurately over the projectors range is the day that I will trade in both of my high performance dinosaurs for that projector. Until then, you just keep dumpster diving with your "good enough" perspective. As I have stated, your standards are much lower than mine are.
Its hard to get lonely when everyone if fighting over who looks at blurays on the high performance dinosaur.
I think you are jealous that you cannot afford anything more than a 37" vizio, that is why you talk up flat panel so much. It makes you feel better.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
(E-Stat warms up the tubes, pours a glass of wine and reads latest installment)
Hi guys. Anyone want to venture how many posts this thread will go? 150? 200?
Say TtT, I've got a friend who replaced his Barco projector with a new Sony HD unit (not sure what model) for his 100" screen. Very nice. How are the new Sony units?
rw
I think Sony's Pearl, and Dark Pear SXRD projectors are really nice. The only problem I have with them, and what keeps me from buying one is that I can see the motion blur on digital projectors. I can also see that they do not do black, or that their color gamut in HD is not correct. When they correct these problems, I will jump in and trade my G-90 and my custom RPTV in for it. JVC has a projector that comes close in black levels, but the motion blur and color issues are still a problem.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
Yeah, Sir T.
I know...this guy....who's building a new house with a dedicated HT Room and he wants a new projector...nothing fancy, decent value performer etc...can you steer m--er...this guy in the right direction?
Kex,
I have only really looked at the higher priced models, I have not seen anything else yet except Sony new Pearl projector. That one is reasonably priced, and if he is not a performance freak like I am, it will probably do for him just fine.
Right now I am doing research into 4k projectors for my post production studio that will be opening up later this year for business. The studio is being built as we speak! I am really excited, as it has been about 4 years since I had to close my other studio because it needed millions of dollars in earthquake retrofitting.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You do not know what I understand, and what I don't. Stick to what you know, and that shouldn't be much.
It does not matter how it is being done, the fact is, its being done. The whole audio and video world does not revovle around what the majors do. The majors don't support high resolution music on Bluray, but it there.
The reason the major aren't messing with CRT's anymore (at least the high end) has nothing to do with performance. It the WAF and that is it. If panels where so great, then why are they chasing the high end CRT market in performance of black levels, greyscale tracking, contrast, instantaneous response, and getting the HD color gamut correct? Why does every mastering house in Hollywood and New York use HD CRT displays for mastering high definition titles? That quality that you see on bluray disc is largely because of the high quality of the display they use to master and author titles for release. There are no flat panels being used for mastering, and there is a reason for that.
Exactly. But you said it was dead, and it is not, not by any stretch of the imagination.
But you are wrong again. Curt Palmer does do R&D on high end CRT projector and RPTV. He has added HDMI inputs to projectors when none had them. He has updated convergence software, provides special color correcting lenses, has created dozens of tweaks, and the list goes on. He has done two upgrades to my G-90 that has noticeably increased performance in several areas. He has essentially taken over where the majors have left off.
This is why I say you are ignorant as hell. There is a whole world that exists outside of your dumpster diving life, and you do not know it. However you feel that you can make educated comments on things you know nothing about, and are willing to dismiss what you cannot see in your world. You life is a small as that little brain of yours. I never said there was a "massive" market for high end CRT. I said that it wasn't dead stupid. Only a uneducated fool goes to these kinds of extremes to make a point.
Or really? What prevents you from watching HD from OTA? What prevents you from watching HD from cable except that it looks like crap? Nothing, its a display device that can be used to watch anything that you want on it. This is the limitations of your thinking, and the crust of your ignorance.
I have watch the superbowl with my G-90 so this statement at best is ignorant as hell.
The drawbacks of the newer projectors is tiny when "good enough" is your way of thinking. But us "performance first" folks find the drawback so irritating and hard to miss, we keep our high performance dinosaurs. The day that I can purchase a projector that can do blacker than black on the pluge pattern, the day that motion blur disappears, the day the HD color gamut is reproduced accurately over the projectors range is the day that I will trade in both of my high performance dinosaurs for that projector. Until then, you just keep dumpster diving with your "good enough" perspective. As I have stated, your standards are much lower than mine are.
Its hard to get lonely when everyone if fighting over who looks at blurays on the high performance dinosaur.
I think you are jealous that you cannot afford anything more than a 37" vizio, that is why you talk up flat panel so much. It makes you feel better.
You prefer the picture of your dinosaur.
Thats fine, some still like to ride horses.
Horses any car can outrun.
Whether or not I can "afford" an antique monstrosity with a lifespan of a few years is
irrelavant, point is I'd be stupid to buy one.
THEY can make a display with 2,000 p, why not get one of those?
A rousch porsch has to be certified to go 200 mph before it can be sold, why not buy one of those? GET some real value for your money.
And I HAVENT BEEN "TALKING UP FLAT PANEL", I have been talking about display projectors, primarily DLP and LCOS, the future, btw.
THESE PROJECTORS HAVE 99% OF THE PERFORMANCE
of one of your "dinosaurs" at a fraction of the price.
I am talking about real world tech, stuff that people with lives can afford,
and that will beat the pants off of your crt dinos in real world conditions.
Is one of your dinos "better" at black level by .001 %?
WHO CARES.
I certainly dont, and that doesnt make me a compromiser, because I AM already
a compromiser, everybody is.
There is a certain point of deminishing returns that it becomes rediculous to keep pouring
massive sums of money into something for smaller and smaller returns.
Most get as much performance as they can afford, but sooner or later all
begin to question spending thousands for tiny increments of improvement.
You have a great system if you have a ton of money to waste and are hermit that
borders on autistic.
Have fun sitting in that "cave" of yours:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
You prefer the picture of your dinosaur.
This is correct. I prefer it because it looks better than any of the flat panel out there, not to mention beats them in every performance catagory that is important for getting high quality images.
Quote:
Thats fine, some still like to ride horses.
Horses any car can outrun.
Whether or not I can "afford" an antique monstrosity with a lifespan of a few years is
irrelavant, point is I'd be stupid to buy one.
You shouldn't have any problem getting used to a antique monstrosity, you are one. CRT of all kinds have a longer track record on the market than any flat panel. So to say that it has a life span of only a few years shows more ignorance than your last responses. A friend of mine's plasma pooped out after only two years of use. My grandmother is still sporting a RCA brand single tube CRT she has had for more than twenty years.
You would be stupid to buy a high end projection system. Performance is not your bag, how cheap something is fits you much better.
Quote:
THEY can make a display with 2,000 p, why not get one of those?
A display that does 2000p would be far larger and monstrous than my current RPTV and G-90. If you are wailing about the size of the device(I believe you have used monstrous several times about my CRT based RPTV) then this would defeat the purpose. If it takes 150", and the inablility of getting the display in my hometheater to get 2160p, it would take something just a "little" smaller(and I mean just a little smaller) to get enough pixels to do 2000p. 2000p is not made for the home just for that reason, it would take a huge device to get enough pixel on the screen to do 2000p. You should know this, you claim to know more than anyone else around here.
Quote:
A rousch porsch has to be certified to go 200 mph before it can be sold, why not buy one of those? GET some real value for your money.
I thought we were talking about display devices. How did we get to cars? You wander in your discussion far too much.
Quote:
And I HAVENT BEEN "TALKING UP FLAT PANEL", I have been talking about display projectors, primarily DLP and LCOS, the future, btw.
THESE PROJECTORS HAVE 99% OF THE PERFORMANCE
Sorry, but you know not what you speak old fool. There is no digital projector out there that does anywhere close to 2000x2500 lines of clean clear information. ZERO! There are no digital display devices that do a TRUE 20,000:1 constrast ratio. Even the best consumer based digital projector out there barely does 8,000:1, and it highly depends on how you measure it. NONE of the digital projectors display the proper color gamut for HD images. All digital projectors have motion and blur problems. DLP still has rainbow problems that I can clearly see, even the more expensive ones have it. Even the most expensive LCD projector still presents black as grey, even though JVC rsp1 comes closer to doing black that I have seen out of any digital projector. So before you pull a number like 99% to describe how close they are in performance, you need to actually compare, which is something you haven't done, and I have. You have NO experience with high end CRT's, you are just using your experience with cheap single gun CRT's as your reference. You have not seen all that many digital projectors out there or you wouldn't be making these outrageous claims on their performance. Digital projection is getting better and better each year, but it still has quite a ways to go to catch up with high end CRT based projection system. Even Joe Kane admits that, are you going to challenge his word as well?
Quote:
of one of your "dinosaurs" at a fraction of the price.
I am talking about real world tech, stuff that people with lives can afford,
and that will beat the pants off of your crt dinos in real world conditions.
Man, you just continue to lie and lie just to stay in the game. As I have explained above, there is currently no parimeter that these new digital projectors beat a high end CRT based projector. There is no $5,000 dollar digital projector than looks better (except for sharpness) than a Sony G-90 or an electrohome 9500. NONE. There is no $10,000 projector who performance exceeds the G-90 or the 9500. From what I have seen out there, you would have to spend upwards of $60,000 dollars on a 2k or 4k digital projector to even come close, but you still have black level problems. The single chip digital display are not even in the same ballpark as a three gun high end CRT projector. The three chip digital displays come close, but are far more expensive than a high end CRT projector.
When you talk of displays that YOU can afford, there is nothing out there that would even compete with a data grade CRT projector let alone a graghics grade one.
Quote:
Is one of your dinos "better" at black level by .001 %?
Well, one of my dino does 30,000:1 measured, the other 25,000:1. That is easily below black on the pluge pattern. The best measured digital display I have seen is a $60,000 Sony 4K projector that does 20,000:1. It does it without the auto iris found on most digital displays to help them get better black levels. There is nothing out there below $20,000 that comes close to either of these two measurements. So I think its is quite a bit better than .001%. Just throwing out these abstract numbers shows just how ignorant you are on this issue.
Quote:
WHO CARES.
I certainly dont, and that doesnt make me a compromiser, because I AM already
a compromiser, everybody is.
You are a huge compromiser if you would take a cheap a$$ digital projector over a high end CRT projector. Performance is not your bag, price is. That is the driving factor for you. You will compromise every area of display performance just to save a buck. I am not that guy. I will pay for performance gains, only if they offer a visual or audible improvement. I do not buy just for the sake of expensive, but I will buy an expensive piece of eqiupment if it is the best my dollar can buy. This is why I say your ceiling is my floor.
Quote:
There is a certain point of deminishing returns that it becomes rediculous to keep pouring
massive sums of money into something for smaller and smaller returns.
This is where your arguement is getting twisted. I have already purchased my stuff, so I am not pouring money anywhere. I bought high quality stuff from the get go, stuff that is upgradeable either via firmware, or pull out modules like my video processors have. I bought my G-90 several years ago, and the upgrades to it have cost me next to nothing. Each and every upgrade I that was done produced visual results, so its money well spent. When the performance of the digital projectors catches up with my setup, I will go with the digital display. That is what folks that like the best images on their screens do. Until it catches up, I will enjoy my dinos, upgrades and all.
Quote:
Most get as much performance as they can afford, but sooner or later all
begin to question spending thousands for tiny increments of improvement.
Well, when I begin to spend thousands and thousands on improvements, then we can talk. But the improvements I have done have not cost anywhere near that amount. This is why I know that you do not know anything about CRT's beyond the cheap single gun type.
Quote:
You have a great system if you have a ton of money to waste and are hermit that
borders on autistic.
Have fun sitting in that "cave" of yours:1:
This smacks of pure jealousy, and is laughable. You are just a mediocre person, with mediocre taste, with no understanding of the value of performance, or any idea of what performance is except what you TALK about rather than own.
Let's face it pixelass, you have seen a few cheap digital projectors and think they are the end all. I have been researching projectors of all kinds for the last six to seven months for my studio. You have been hear talking about them, while I have been actually viewing them. You talk about how good you THINK they are, but I have seen them measured and compared against each other. What you need to do if you are going to have this discussion with me is to get off of your fat cheap a$$, look at a properly calibrated and tweaked G-90 or 9500, and go and compare that to any projector costing what you think is reasonable. That would be alot more productive and informative than just sitting on your fat old ignorant a$$ throwing out abstract percentages and numbers, and making stupid claims that are not supported by fact and measurements.
|