Shhhhh Don't Tell Pix....Vizio is coming out with...A PLASMA!!!!

[pixelthis]

If you have never owned one, then how can you possibly comment on the picture quality? This means that all of your comments and comparisons are born out of complete ignorance, and lack of experience. Hardly credible in anyone's book. Your other comments are to justify your ignorance, and its usually better to not comment, than to put your ignorance out there.

OH PLEASE, I spent three years learning about CRT tech as well as tv electronics,
and like to think I HAVE KEPT UP a little at least.
You know what people like about the new panels and projectors?
THE BRIGHTNESS.
This is very important to a lot of people, including me.
You're comments about black level being a shade of gray in lcd panels is disingenious
at best, blacks are a tad washed out when everythings turned up for room lighting, but
this is why they have controls to adjust these levels when you dont need that much illumination. Black level is quite good under low light conditions, with teh backlight down
The "perfect" black level people talk about in CRT displays comes at a high price.
Dimness, burn in , and awkward size and weight, and a short lifespan.
And I have had several devices cositing several thousand dollars BTY.
my first HDTV was a 47in RPTV, in spite of an almost obsessive dilligence in keeping static images off of the screen and the contrast down to 50, burn in still occured.
And you can only make a phosper dot so small, these "bleed" over from illuminated pixels
to unlit ones, smaller pixels wont last as long (less phosper) etc.
I know plenty about CRT, the 30,000 volts needed to drive one, their relative fragility,
How much fun it is turning the yoke when its on, etc.
That is why I dont have one, that is why MOST dont have one

If you have never purchased anything above $1000, then how do you know you get 95% of the performance of a above $1000 from a below $1000 product? This is nothing more than ignorant statements from an ignorant person. You don't know, so you just keep pulling these abstract numbers out of your a$$. You do this over and over, and its getting boring.

I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that your inability to understand abstracts borders on autistic.
No one ever knows when the law of diminshing returns kicks in, but it does
do so.
And yes I have bought several devices costing well over a grand, allow for inflation and most cost that much.
AND most were CRT based of course.
My simple set goes at least 90% of the way, and exceeds your stuff in some areas,
that these areas are in your words" unimportant" is convienent

How do you know, you have never owned a front projection CRT, you haven't even owned a front projection digital projector. More ignorance, and no fact. There is no way you can say resolution or true picture quality, that only comes with experience with the product, not just some guesses. There is no LCD, DLP, or ILA based consumer projector that can do 2000x2500 lines of information, that is a fact. Only professional projectors that cost over $60,000-$100,000 poses that kind of resolution. Digital projectors look digital because they sample and hold, rather than creating a sliver of blackness between frames just like theater projectors do, and camera do as well. So they can never exibit "true" picture quality until they do what the source does, create lines of blacks between frames.

WHAT a copout, I have never owned a Rousch Porsch either, but I can find the fuel in jection system, brakes, etc quite handily.
A front projector is just an adapted RPTV, uses three tubes in primary colors to produce a color picture, hardly rocket science.
The last real improvement was 9" tubes, then most saw the writing on the wall,
mainly that CRT, which were never intended to be projection devices could never compete with mercury bulbs, which were designed to put out decent light

You are wrong again. Joe Kane(remember him, you like to quote him at your convience) says the minimum acceptable contrast ratio for any display device is at least 20,000:1. That would put it in the same ballpark as professional projectors and cameras. 1000:1 is perfectly acceptable to a person trying to justify his cheapness, and his compromise for a lesser product that does not meet even minimal standards. SMPTE also uses the same standards as Joe Kane, so to say there is no "standard" is just your ignorance, and just shows that quality is not what you are after, only light output is your standard.

Good old joe, I BOUGHT MY SET A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, 1,000/'1 was considered quite good for an LCD, although a compromise.
Sets these days are capable of much more, but for serious watching I turn down the light on the set and contrast is improved a great deal.
As for 20,000 to one contrast there are some higher end sets now that can acheive at least 10,000

You opened the door idiot, and I walked through. If you use Joe Kane for one thing, you have to use him for all things. What you cannot do is parse his information to suit your argument. That is what a true shyster is, a little lying cheat. You misquote him, twist his words, and quite frankly I do not think you do it purposely, but because you have no idea how to vet the information you read. When you make the claim you have forgotten more than I will ever know, make sure you have not forgotten the basics and the detail that supports the basics, which it appears you have.

I quote joe kane from widescreen review, and what he says about resolution and picture q
contradicts almost everything you have to say so I WOULD BE CAREFULL QUOTING HIM

What a stupid statement from a stupid person

mY FAULT, THATS WHAT YOU GET TRYING TO TALK DOWN TO A NINNY WHO DOESNT EVEN UNDERSTAND the difference between a test bench and real world conditions.
like the riverboat pilot SAMUEL CLEMENS said, "their are lies, damn lies, and statistics".
the same could be said of test bench results.
YOU KNOW ENOUGH, YOU CAN GET TEST GEAR TO JUMP THROUGH ALL KINDS OF HOOPS.
The key question is real world performance, ease of use and availability.
I have always tried to emphazise affordable , reliable, well performing gear that will allow the average person to experience the joy of this hobby.
The stuff you have(or claim to have) has no relevance in the real world.
Produce gear with those specs that the average person can use and purchase in the real world and you might have something, right now you have an expensive toy

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

OH PLEASE, I spent three years learning about CRT tech as well as tv electronics,
and like to think I HAVE KEPT UP a little at least.

You can really tell its just a little Learning about it without hands on experience is useless. And when you were learning about it, CRT projection wasn't even around, so your experience and well as your education on this particular piece of equipment is NIL

Thinking is terrible for you. You thinking is like telling somebody else to drink poison.

You know what people like about the new panels and projectors?
THE BRIGHTNESS.
This is very important to a lot of people, including me.
You're comments about black level being a shade of gray in lcd panels is disingenious
at best, blacks are a tad washed out when everythings turned up for room lighting, but
this is why they have controls to adjust these levels when you dont need that much illumination. Black level is quite good under low light conditions, with teh backlight down

When a television is properly calibrated, its peak brightness level is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the projector or panel meets SMPTE standards of brightness on the screen when the calibration is done. So it really doesn't matter if the projector peak light output is 1300 lumens or 2500 lumens. Because you follow NO STANDARDS, you seem to enjoy posting compromise after unnecessary compromise which makes me understand you have not clue what a properly calibrated picture looks like. It is not something you can watch in a lit room. If you turn up the brightness to compensate for the light in the room, shadow detail is lost, and the blacks start turning grey. With LCD panel, even when the room is dark, it cannot acheive blacker than black which is crutial to acheiving proper greyscale, and getting the proper greyscale is crutial to every other parimeter one uses to acheive a good picture quality. The very idea that a LCD panel needs a bias light to acheive a decent contrast ratio shows that the technology at this point cannot compete with high end CRT's(does not matter if they don't make them anymore, you can still get them) which does not require any kind of band aid to acheive a contrast level that meets both SMPTE and Joe Kane's recommended level. And the reality is, even with the bias light, it still cannot meet the standards for contrast level. If we listen to your idiotic advice, picture quality would vary from set to set, and we once again would have a system that was NTSC, never twice the same color.

So this whole brightness thing(when you take accurate picture quality into consideration) is a red herring if I ever saw one. Its one thing to understand how something works. its another to understand how something should be set up to produce an accurate picture. You say you know the former, but I know for sure you do not know the latter.

The "perfect" black level people talk about in CRT displays comes at a high price.
Dimness, burn in , and awkward size and weight, and a short lifespan.

Once again more ignorance, and no fact. A properly calibrated CRT will never experience burn in. That is because the contrast level must be turned down quite a bit to acheive an accurate greyscale. Its the same for LCD, DLP, ILA and any other type of display device. Secondly, burn only occurs when the contrast ratio is set too high, and you display static images for a long time. If you are watching television programs and blurays(which have constantly moving images) and the contrast is properly set, how can this possible occur? Thirdly, a short CRT lifespan is a result of the contrast and brightness being up too high. When a CRT is properly calibrated, a CRT can last longer than any bulb in a panel. That is why you have CRT projection devices still around today some twenty years after its introduction. Yes they are large and awkard I will give you that. But anyone looking for real accurate images is not going to care one bit about that, just like a person who wants a VERY accurate extended range speaker will not care about the size of the cabinet in their listening rooms. What your low brow taste finds important, and what a person looking for a accurate picture quality finds important are polarly divergant.

And I have had several devices cositing several thousand dollars BTY.
my first HDTV was a 47in RPTV, in spite of an almost obsessive dilligence in keeping static images off of the screen and the contrast down to 50, burn in still occured.

Which means that that display device was not properly calibrated, and/or was cheap in the first place. I have had RPTV's and projectors in my hometheater since the early nineties. Not one of them had any signs of burn in after more than fifteen years of daily usage. The projector I had before the G-90 was used just about everyday for fifteen years, it had very minimal wear on the CRT's from reproducing widescreen images, but absolutely nothing that would degrade performance. It is obvious to me that your contrast setting of 50 is not enough

Your experience does not equal everyones experience.

And you can only make a phosper dot so small, these "bleed" over from illuminated pixels
to unlit ones, smaller pixels wont last as long (less phosper) etc.
I know plenty about CRT, the 30,000 volts needed to drive one, their relative fragility,
How much fun it is turning the yoke when its on, etc.
That is why I dont have one, that is why MOST dont have one

Since I don't play basketball with my display devices, it fragility is irrelevant. Since it is not being moved all over the place, this is another weak stab at nothing in terms of making a point. LCD suffer from "backlight leakage" which is why their contrast levels are so low. You can stick a bias light to help out with black levels, but they cannot at this time compete with a CRT device of any catagory when it comes to black levels. Using larger guns on CRT's allows a much higher phosphor density which is why they have more resolution than smaller guns and direct views. Your argument is weak when you start talking about anything of better quality than a direct view television.

Your turning the yoke comment was stupid at best. Nobody turns the yoke when the television is on. Turning the yoke is not a everyday job, and I know of nobody who has had to do this as a everyday practice. A repairman yes, but not the consumer.

It is a fact there are far more CRT in service all over the world than flat panels. That is a undisputable fact, so this comment about nobody has them, is a bald face lie.

I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that your inability to understand abstracts borders on autistic.
No one ever knows when the law of diminshing returns kicks in, but it does
do so.

I would prefer not to use your standards to make that determination. They are too low.

And yes I have bought several devices costing well over a grand, allow for inflation and most cost that much.
AND most were CRT based of course.
My simple set goes at least 90% of the way, and exceeds your stuff in some areas,
that these areas are in your words" unimportant" is convienent

Adjusting for inflation does not increase the performance of the display device, so it is irrelevant as a basis of an argument. How do you know something is 90% of anything without experience with both? Abstracts are terrible as they are nothing more than a moving target. We now have standards, which do not allow for abstracts. You have to actually measure performance. And when you do that, you will find that your abstract percentage of performace in reality is much much lower. Measurements of performance are much better to me than just taking your so called experience, as your experience has proven pretty inadequate when it comes to anything higher than a cheap RPTV. As I have said before, you opinion, experience, and what you have forgotten is on par with tissue paper just used to clean a a$$

I have never owned a Rousch Porsch either, but I can find the fuel in jection system, brakes, etc quite handily.

Meaningless. We are not talking about cars. I can find my tubes in my projector, it does not mean I can repair them does it? Whether you can find anything does not equal knowledge or experience, and the fact that you think it does is very telling.

A front projector is just an adapted RPTV, uses three tubes in primary colors to produce a color picture, hardly rocket science.
The last real improvement was 9" tubes, then most saw the writing on the wall,
mainly that CRT, which were never intended to be projection devices could never compete with mercury bulbs, which were designed to put out decent light

Once again back to the light arguement. This shows just how weak your talking points are. Since 9" tubes can reproduce resolution higher than our HDTV standard, it seem that there is no need to advance beyond that. Since 9" CRT can put up enough light on a screen to reproduce an accurate 1080p image, and still meet SMPTE STANDARDS, then your argument if pretty much moot. All a CRT has to do is meet SMPTE standards for light output on the screen, and it has done its job. There is no reason in the world a CRT gun has to burn your eyes out in a brightly lit room, just like there is no real reason a digital projector has to do so. The more light a projector produces over that standard, the poorer the contrast ratio will be. That is why we should not watch high defintiion images in brightly lit rooms, and why peak light output makes absolutely no difference when acheiving ACCURATE images. Your argment only has legs when a person purposely wants to create poor images with poor contrast ratio, and has no desire to meet any standards. This is you in the flesh.

Good old joe, I BOUGHT MY SET A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, 1,000/'1 was considered quite good for an LCD, although a compromise.

Well, a cheap direct view CRT could do that easily.

Sets these days are capable of much more, but for serious watching I turn down the light on the set and contrast is improved a great deal.
As for 20,000 to one contrast there are some higher end sets now that can acheive at least 10,000

Let's face it Pix, total on and off on your panel is 1000:1 even when you turn your light down. It can never be more than what the panel can actually accomplish no matter what you do with the lights in your room.

As far as your comments regarding higher end sets doing 10,000:1, you are correct. That would be the Sony SXRD 4k projector which cost about $60-100,000 based on lens options. A sub $3k three gun CRT projector can easily accomplish that, and that just shows how far a LCD panel or projector has to go to catch up with a low end three gun CRT. There is only one flat panel that meets Joe Kanes and SMPTE recommendations. Its not a LCD based anything, its the Pioneer Kuros plasma panels. The best measured LCD based anything I have seen measured using Joe Kanes and SMPTE standards are basically 8000:1 with a noisy dynamic iris trying to keep up with the shifting light levels from fast moving scenes. Based on the comments I read, the iris's noise levels could be heard even when there were loud scenes in the picture. Once compromise to acheive another.

I quote joe kane from widescreen review, and what he says about resolution and picture q
contradicts almost everything you have to say so I WOULD BE CAREFULL QUOTING HIM

You are a bald face lie. I have EVERY widescreen review mag dating back to when it first started. While you can quote him, you do not understand completely what you are quoting, and you omit or dismiss anything that does not fit your arguement. You tell half truths which are also half lies. That makes your information completely unreliable at best.

mY FAULT, THATS WHAT YOU GET TRYING TO TALK DOWN TO A NINNY WHO DOESNT EVEN UNDERSTAND the difference between a test bench and real world conditions.

Last time I checked, test bench measurements tell what something can do in the real world. If the display device has a poor contrast measurement, it will not produce white whites or blacker than black in the real world. If it has a poor greyscale measurement on the bench, it would not be able to accurately transition from black to white. If the scaler does a poor job in the bench, the images will be soft in the real world. If it cannot reproduce the HD color gamut, it will not be able to do that with real world HD images. This is why magazines (and Joe Kane) make these measurements, because they will reflect real world performance. The fact that you think the two can be seperated shows that you do not know as much as you think you know. Tigers have stripes whether you see them in daylight or nightlight. If a panel measures poorly on the bench, it will perform poorly in the real world.

like the riverboat pilot SAMUEL CLEMENS said, "their are lies, damn lies, and statistics".
the same could be said of test bench results.

So your answer to this would be to throw out all test measurements, and not believe them? I suppose Joe Kane said this in Widescreen Review as well.

YOU KNOW ENOUGH, YOU CAN GET TEST GEAR TO JUMP THROUGH ALL KINDS OF HOOPS.

Yes you can, and the marketing departments of the manufacturers do it all the time, and guess what, you believe them, and quote them as a basis of your arguement. This is why I go to Joe Kane on display devices. He doesn't make them, and therefore does not need to fudge numbers, or attempt a slight of hand with measurements. He uses industry established measurement parimeters(SMPTE standards which have been rigorlessly tested) so his testing is always accurate and not fudged or manipulated. Sorry Pix, you cannot attempt to re-write history. Speakers are measured as a basis of real world perfomance, and so are display devices. With this everything is abstract(just the way you like it) and there would be no standards for sound reproduction or display performance.

The key question is real world performance, ease of use and availability.
I have always tried to emphazise affordable , reliable, well performing gear that will allow the average person to experience the joy of this hobby.

Real world performance is reflected by test bench measurements. Ease of use is meaningless as something may be easy for me to use, may not be easy for my grandmother to use. Affordable is based on somebody income, I think high end CRT's projectors are affordable, and you don't. Well performing without measurements is abstract and based on a person level of understanding of what performance really is. That measurement is all over the place as people view performance in much different ways. You think brightness is performance, I think that contrast ratio, color accuracy, greyscale accuracy, and getting the proper light levels on the screen is performance. Your key question is not my key question, which is why you need test measurements that create standards. If we went by your abstracts, no single device would look alike in any studio, home, office, or any other place that display devices are present. That is not our real world performance, sorry pixie.

The stuff you have(or claim to have) has no relevance in the real world.
Produce gear with those specs that the average person can use and purchase in the real world and you might have something, right now you have an expensive toy

Sorry, I do not aspire to mediocrity, you do. That is why there is a high end, mid level, and mass market. Everyone idea of performance is not the same. I am not the blend in type, you are. I do not want to be like you, it would be a HUGE step backwards for me.

[E-Stat]

Tell you what guys, I'm going to put this thread out of its misery. What started off with some playful banter at times went a bit over the top. I think we all get the points by now.

rw