Slashdot Mirror
CRTs Still Beat Flat-Panel TVs
mr.henry writes "Consumers scrambling for sexy new flat-panel televisions may want to tune in to this less-publicized feature of the trendy boxes: They don't deliver pictures as clearly as traditional tube TVs do. Consumers think they're buying the best in technology (with flat-panel televisions), but it's more of an emotional purchase."
are you telling me that "Regular Ol' TVs" are better than flat HDTVs?
Le français vous intéresse?
Seen the Best Buy commercials? How about Circuit City? Or maybe a cable or satellite company?
The thing I like most about the new LCDs and Plasma screens is that it makes the CRTs less expensive...
I don't mind the bulkiness because I get bonuses: Cheaper price and (not just according to this article, but personal experience) a better picture...
but flat panels still look so cool...
Still, nothing beats CRTs when it comes to consistent brightness from a variety of viewing angles.
Emotional purchases, indeed. "Yeah, but this one goes up to eleven!!"
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
shell out $1700 for a 17" LCD tv and then hook it up to an antennae for 4 stations...
He also thinks "mid engine" on his Boxter means the engine is still in front of him, just not all the way up to the bumper. He justifies this by pointing out the washer fluid reserves and whatnot as being part of the engine.
You call it excessive, I call it ambitious.
I have been tempted many times by the sleak and sexy LCD's, but why would I want to spend $1500+ on two replacement monitors that have a limited viewing angle, limited resolutions selections, limited game performance?
I've yet to see, however, a LCD that makes me want to replace my beasts.
I can think of a number of ways in which CRTs beat flatscreens, but this article never gives any. And yet it's a major point -- the thrust of the title and first two paragraphs. Back to the Basic Essay Dungeon with the author! Support your argument, j-school dropout!
People (especially ladies) like the flat screens because of their super slim depth, massive picture size, and amazing light-weight.
Show me a 60" CRT -- and if you can even find one, find a rec-room it would fit in, and try and lift it!
Sam
My wife does marketing and likes to label this class of people as "stupid rich".
If by 'emotional response' you mean 'consumers don't want to go completely bankrupt by purchasing a TV', then yes.
The MUCH lower cost of tube based TVs is probably a bigger driver of the current market.
The other day I moved the DVD player from the bedroom TFT TV (Samsung) to the kitchen TV, and was very surprised at how good the old TV was. And for months I was thinking that DVDs were getting worse and worse in encoding quality.
The same with watching DVDs on the PC through a monitor -- you'd think that the quality would be best of all, but even from a distance you can see encoding and scaling problems.
I think tube TVs will be around for a long time for affictionados -- kinda like record players.
"This is totally insecure, but very convenient."
The warm fuzzy feeling alone that you get when you hang on TV on your wall like a picture I think makes up for the lower picture quality.
:)
Although if you got an old-style TV, I guess you could replace your table with a pile of money and break even
unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; find ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; fsck ; umount ; sleep
But then, for lowly consumers, when is it the technology that matters ?
:-) but both free up a huge area of floorspace and don't intrude. The LCD looks nicer when it's not on...
:-)
At the end of the day, you want something nice in your living room, and a flatscreen TV fits the bill. Personally I prefer a projector (nothing like an 8' image to give you a sense of cinema
I'm typing this on a 23" Apple Cinema Screen LCD display, which I bought because it was gorgeous. Simple as. The fact that for significantly less cash I could have had 2 CRT's and a slightly larger screen real-estate didn't matter (which is saying something for me - I like having lots of windows open at once...). Looks matter
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
The issue isn't resolution or viewing angle.
I still prefer CRTs myself. Cost and Quality, desk space is not an issue, it's not worth thousands to get an extra square foot or two of deskspace, I'll just fill it up with junk anyway.
I'll stick with my 21" Sony Trinitron, and a pair of 17" screens, thank you. Resolution is amazing, color reproduction is great, refresh rate is astronomical, and I probably glow in the dark when it get's dark.
I do not prefer my laptops screens, they just don't cut it, and even the expensive ones that we have installed at clients are still not up to my high standards. And that's probably just it, I have too high standards.
Oh well...
Totally Random: Orbital's mix of the Doctor Who theme is amazing, grab a clip off the net(my last download from suprnova) or better yet, buy the CD! I did, who says file sharing makes you buy less, I never would have bought this if I had not downloaded it first...
Anyway...
On Arrakis: early worm gets the bird. Magister mundi sum!
There's no HDTV I can justify buying now. The only one worth buying is the $35,000 Mitsubishi one which is basically a 50" computer monitor.
Even the $15,000 plasmas you see on MTV cribs have motion artifacts.
I'm not saying they all suck, I'm just saying I can't justify any of them right now.
Although some of the flat panel technologies have issues with burn-in or brightness, at least they maintain each pixel in focus. CRTs get fuzzy over time. Not everyone wants to see square pixels, and the latency can be an issue, but I'll take LCD over CRT any day.
This article is rather nebulous when it comes to support for its wild assertions. This paragraph sums it up:
"LCDs are great as desktop PC monitors because they don't have to refresh pictures rapidly--more LCD desktop monitors were shipped in 2004 than those using CRT technology, according to researcher iSuppli--but they don't work as well when used as televisions. Plasmas tend to lose brightness over time and don't offer images as sharp as those served up by CRTs. Manufacturers are working to improve these shortcomings."
First of all, LCD refresh rates are now excellent. Modern units can do better than the 25ms refresh time of yesterday's screens. Besides, that adds up to 40fps, which exceeds TV's ~30fps.
Furthermore, later on in the article they point out that flat panels are better for digital because they can deal with the higher resolutions of HDTV. Now how can a CRT have better picture quality than plasma, but plasma have a better resolution making it better for HDTV?
The fact is that this article is all hype. It's trying to portray the manufacturers as trying to squeeze every last dollar out of honest Americans through lies and chicanery. Well I call foul.
I go down to the local electronics store all the time, and the difference between CRT and LCD/Plasma is seen quite clearly. In fact, the best picture comes from the projectors, which are by far the best price.
There is an interesting set of articles over at Extremetech that compare CRT, LCD, Plasma and DLP display systems.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
I work at a retailer that sells several different kinds of TVs and I've found that the average consumer that I'm dealing with is really in the dark about current TV technology and tends to follow the notion that more expensive = better.
I found myself having to really educate people who come in since they often have no idea that LCD is diffrent from flat CRTs, or plasmas, or HDTV. Most consumers really have very little to go on, and the battles between manufacturers on what will be the next standard really isn't helping.
These are breasts; this is source code.
Why do you have a problem with those two things belonging to one person?
Or is the site not loading? Googlecache: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:6qWFhaqeaZYJ: www.zdnetindia.com/reviews/product_news/stories/11 4569.html+&hl=en&client=firefox-a
Mirror dot: http://www.mirrordot.com/stories/2712f2435ee5df05c c584434364b7951/index.html
they cost thousands of dollars right now, but the sunnybrook high dynamic range monitors seen at last year's SIGGRAPH were a showstopper... They currently have a model that offeres a dynamic range of 40,000:1x .html has a good visual on how effective the system is.
compared to the best of today's displays ~700:1, that's something to brag about. most are about 300:1!
I believe 40,000:1 reaches the limits of human vision.
They work by individually illuminating the pixels with LEDs, thus facilitating higher dynamic range and local control. Darks are darker lights are brighter.
http://www.sunnybrooktech.com/hdr/inde
Once the price drops to reasonable levels, I think that the act of purchasing a flatscreen will become something more than an "emmotional" venture.
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
Your CRT monitor according to some studies shows it can cause brain damage and short term memory problems due to the radiation.
http://saveie6.com/
I have expanded basic cable and a cable modem, enough of a distraction. Digital cable and a HDTV would just hurt my grades. Either CRT or plasma/LCD
Bacardi + slashdot = negative karma.
Cnet has nice article on FED screens using carban nanotubes
Something about retiring a 60 lb behemoth for a seven pound monitor.
When I did my research for a new TV a few months ago, picture quality was the highest piece of criteria, I ended up settling on a 116cm widescreen Sony Rear Projection TV and have been very happy with it ever since.
But everyone has asked me why didn't I get a LCD or a Plasma! I always responded with "nah.. the picture quality is usually shithouse." only to be met with blank looks.
Nice to see other people generally agree with me that LCD and plasma, although while "lite and thin", still need a few more generations before the picture quality is acceptable for those who give a shit.
Friends don't let Friends use Internet Explorer.
Standalone LCD TV's are often more than the price of a descent computer with LCD monitor and TV tuner.
I've noticed that prices are really dropping lately, but I'm still not that impressed by the technology.
I miss my old Sony Trinitron Monitor with the dual input and the little slide switch in the front.
This flat panel doesn't hold a candle to the trinitron, even with it's little lines.
Sadly, it wasn't mine to keep. It was owned by work. (I should have stolen it, they wouldn't have noticed)
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
I'll take a little picture degradation to be able to hang a 37" TV on the bedroom wall rather than having a 200-pound behemoth taking up 3/4 of my dresser. And you'd have a hard time telling the difference in picture quality from 15' away unless you saw them side by side.
CRTs have better contrast and brightness and last longer. They handle multiple resolutions well. They are also generally substantially cheaper. To my eye, nothing else matches a top-quality direct view CRT, although the most expensive LCD displays come close.
However, they are also heavy and unavailable in larger screen sizes.
Yes. They also have those little touchpads around the house to control all the lights in the house, etc. They didn't have a DVD player until last year on their home entertainment system, though.
Stupid rich indeed.
You call it excessive, I call it ambitious.
This marvelous machine cost be $3.5K in 1983 and has had one $300 repair since. And still gives really good service. There is a story behind this machine. The wife was pregnant and left our house for 20 minutes (no automatic door opener so she left the garage door open). Yes we were burgled and they stole the TV. I shopped for a replacement and saw this M and thought "No b.....d could steal this in 20 minutes and bought it on a whim. Amazingly I still use it, every day. Nice 53" screen. Ahhh. So the question now is, what do I replace it with? An HD obviously. Plasma, Nope more hype and price than performance IMHO. A DLP from say Samsung 6163 ish? Or a JVC type LCOS D'ILA? I am hoping that the ces has some nice models which drive HD prices down again... But I would consider a CRT, but have to be really big and not weigh more than 250lbs. It's a really important question, because it might have to last 20 years like my last TV.....
OLED will be what finally displaces CRTs-- the picture quality is supposed to improve dramatically with OLED, and the viewing angle (IIRC) becomes a non-issue. As they emit their own light, they don't need heavy backlighting which reduces both weight and depth, and the production costs are much cheaper on OLED as compared to LCD.
Hopefully in another 2-3 years (5 tops) we'll see these out in the mass consumer market at competitive prices.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
For christmas I got (after lots and lots or research) the Viewsonic VP201S lcd. I'm a programmer and occasional gamer (hard to game too much in linux) and so was looking for a large lcd with good response time, and I've always insisted on running @ 1600x1200. This monitor fits the bill perfectly. No ghosting that I've seen so far, the screen is REALLY bright. The viewing angles are as good as I need them to be. It's (apparently) ready for an hdtv signal (doubt I'll ever use that feature).
Basicly, although this is definitely not a low-end model (cost @ newegg: $740 US) it definitely competes quite nicely with the 19" CRT's I've been using for years, and those were nice CRT's (dell with Sony Trinitron tube). I've got to say that I love this monitor. Everything is crisp, color quality is good. No ghosting, no dead pixels, can't see pixels at all without REALLY trying.
So no, this was not an emotionally charged LCD-TV purchase, it was a well thought-out LCD-monitor purchase and I can't be happier!
This is my Sig.
Huh. And here I thought that the 60" models were always some sort of projection thing. I didn't think anybody made a Cathode Ray Tube television as large as 40".
Nice thing about those projection-style TV's is the lack of a heavy Cathode Ray Tube which is typically made of glass and really fscking heavy. I wonder how much that 60" Cathode Ray Tube television you're talking about weighs?
You know, oddly enough, I couldn't find a single Cathode Ray Tube television larger than 36" or 37" ? Your link doesn't seem to have a web address associated with it, 'cause my cursor don't turn into a little finger when I'm over it. Who'd you say makes that thing, again?
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
They don't deliver pictures as clearly as traditional tube TVs do.
Well, no shit.
Any person who walks into the hifi section of a department store and immediately picks an expensive TV without comparing the quality of the (usually) 20+ tvs on display is either WAY too rich for their own good, or has zero sense when it comes to shopping.
On another note, my flatmate has a 17" CRT monitor and he swears by it. His argument for not getting an LCD? "Show me an LCD monitor that can display black properly."
Regardless of whether black is black or a very dark gray, my 19" LCD still outperforms his CRT in brightness and clarity, and with a 12ms response time it's great for games too.
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
While I'll be the first to admit it was tempting to save a few grand on a cheaper TV, I decided to go with a digital display, The 52" Mitsubishi WD-52525 DLP, and here's why:
- Digital displays have a lot of the newer bells and whistlers RP CRTs don't have. HDMI and DVI ports, CableCard support, IR blaster, individual color management, etc. While I was considering RP CRTs, I thought about how I might run out of good inputs to use and need to buy a switch box, for example. Or how I'd still need a cable box to watch digital channels.
- Weight and size. I currently live with my parents and plan on moving out within the next year or so. My TV is one of the larger digital displays, but considering it weights 100 lbs versus the same size on a RP CRT weighing in at 250, it'll be a lot easier to move.
- Maintenence. I didn't want to have to call up a tech to fix convergence issues on a RP CRT every few months or a year. While auto convergence is nice, it's really a half-assed job.
There are some good arguments for buying a RP CRT, mainly cost. Picture quality is arguable. Sure, a calibrated RP CRT kicks the shit out of pretty much every digital display out there, but the problem is paying $1,000+ for that quality configuration negates the cost benefit, not to mention it's not a one-time only cost and requires maintenence, which is even more money. And what you also need to keep in mind is that 90% of the people don't see the slight differences between a TV with default settings or hours of configuration. A better survey would be seeing how many people still have all their settings at the halfway point and contrast boosted to the max.
As much as this can create some benefits for those of us who are poor (like dual g4's with 512mb ram on ebay for $400), they cause a lot of problems in the market in places where the goods are a little bit more necessary.
Take food, for instance. I would very much like to buy organically grown, chemical and gmo free vegetables (which my grandfather was able to buy when he was my age), but because those have become yuppie foods, they're priced out of my price range. There's no reason that veggie burgers should be more expensive than real burgers, where you have to raise a whole damn cow as opposed to growing some soybeans, but because they're trendy, people pay a lot of money for them.
The "stupid rich" create benefits for things like technology, because they offset R&D costs when the company overprices when it first comes to market. But for goods that I feel everybody deserves the highest quality, they really make life difficult.
Your CRT monitor according to some studies shows it can cause brain damage and short term memory problems due to the radiation.
This is just silly. Why, many of us here on Slashdot have been using them every day for years now... some for decades! And when you look at the fine group we have assembled here, I'm sure you won't find any evidence of brain damage or short-term... ah... wait a sec, now. What were we talking about again? No, of course I remember... heh. Just give me a few moments to review some polaroids and these notes that I've written on my skin, and I'll comment further.
Consumers scrambling for sexy new flat-panel televisions may want to tune in to this less-publicized feature of the trendy boxes: They don't deliver pictures as clearly as traditional tube TVs do
I must disagree to some extent with this article and opinion. It really depends on what you call "clearly". For example, text and edges are MUCH clearer on any type of flat panel than a CRT.
There is also the issue of calibration. A CRT gradually comes out of adjustment, requiring a skilled technician to correct. In order to keep your CRT as clear as, say, a DLP, you would have to get your CRT's imaged calibrated every 6 mos to a year, the DLP will never need a "maintenance" adjustment after the first calibration. This goes for any of the digital sets.
Also, what is one to do if they require an image of 40" or greater? I have looked at the XBR 40" Sony, and anyone who would argue its image is "clearer" than any native 720p set is smoking crack. The CRT image, while sitting 4' from the set, has vertical lines and you can't focus clearly on edge text. The 50" DLP I went with has no pixel separation and the edges are much clearer.
I see the article would only address specifically plasma shortcomings and a small blurb about refresh rates. Why leave out DLP? It has the highest refresh of anything. Oh yes, because it doesn't fit with the BS the story wants to feed you.
Remember kids, this is ZDNet India..
I bought a Sharp Aquos LCD television last year. It's only a 20" model, not a giant one, and it's only normal TV, not HDTV.
It's way better than the CRT it replaced.
There are no issues with ghosting; it clearly refreshes fast enough for TV, DVDs, or console video gaming.
I am looking forward to the day when I get a much bigger one (the 37" and 42" both look nice). When I get the bigger one, it will be a model with a DVI input, and I'll hook up a computer to that. I want to play first-person games on a giant screen with my living room's surround sound all around me.
steveha
P.S. I figure LCD is pretty much a stable technology at this point. It's basically a large laptop screen, and those have been around for years. Plasma has burnin issues, and OLED may simply fade with time. I look forward to SED displays... but LCD is here now and getting more affordable every year.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Consumers think they're buying the best in technology (with flat-panel televisions), but it's more of an emotional purchase.
Emotional purchase? Yes, I know, marketers and retailers think the buyers are all dumb as bricks. These are not the ones checking the needs of consumers and developing the products, however.
Since when was video quality the only factor? Power consumption, less space, more features and the abscence of x-rays from a CRT are viable reasons for many to go with LCD.
I can find both CRT and LCD good and bad, so that should actually factor out.
I've sold them for a long time now, but I've never thought they had NEARLY as good of a picture as a CRT. And the next closest in the larger sizes is DLP, by far. LCD and Plasmas always look very pixellated.
I've always thought it was pretty obvious, but maybe not.
Blake
For some of us it isn't an emotional purchase. Some of us don't have the 18+ inches of depth needed for a CRT.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Wow! Are you in his will?
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
I just wanna a TV I can mount on my ceiling so I can watch TV easier in bed.
Can anyone recommend a place to start as far as name brand and what paramaters are important?
Yes, the CRT had higher resolution. Yes, it was bigger. But I really only used it for graphical displays. The crisp edges and absence of flicker on the LCD more than made up for the pixellation.
Just my opinion... perhaps it was the Linux drivers for my Matrox card, or Xinerama or ... but I won't be buying anymore CRT's.
... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.
However, when I was shopping for a TV two years ago we decided to go for a 28 inch CRT widescreen, even though to the uninformed the picture quality from the 32 inch "full digital HDTV" beside it and the flat screens was vastly superior.
However, the shop was cheating - the standard model we bought was getting the feed from a low-quality DVD - free from obvious artifacts, but encoded at a low bitrate and perhaps even low resolution and maybe even some dodgy connector cable to mute the colours; on the other hand the full digital HDTVs and flatscreens had an HDTV feed (isn't that uncompressed?) and looked about a million times better.
The telly we bought has a digital input for DVD etc, and a separate box can be bought to decode HDTV should we wish, and anyway the standard analog aerial produces as good a picture as we could ever wish for!
The 36" Sony high def TV is some something like $1500 at Best Buy now. When it hits a grand I'll probably cave in....
Its not an emotional thing for me -- i have two reasons for liking flatscreens.
First, and most important, is that I have 3 places I live -- College, Home, and my Co-op job. These 3 locations are pretty far apart, and I move between them several times a year. If I had to haul CRTs everywhere, well, I'd probably do without.
Second, for a computer monitor, I really like the LCDs -- the lack of flicker makes a difference to me.
I'm willing to be that a lot of LCD purchases are fueled by higher education... it's easily a well-sought-after college freshman gift.
ALL purchases are emotional.
All rational conscious actions have an emotional motive, perhaps. But purchases can be made either rationally or irrationally in order to meet that emotional motive. *That's* what the author means.
In this case, some are simply allowing expectations to dictate their emotions.
That would be quite rational. The problem is that their expectations are false.
What emotions we feel are entirely up to us.
That is false.
Or someone uses a really small font and they get hidden behind your Trinitrons apature grill support lines.
Of course Sonys patent has expired and other companies have starting using thier apature grill design also.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
You might look for a food co-op in your area they are a great way to buy most organic foods at wholesale (still not cheap but better than the markup). If you live near the country you might befriend a local farmer (or their kid) to have them grow you a few rows of organic food. You might not get veggie patties but you could get some of the nicest produce and grain you've had in some time.
This is easier to do with animals (hormone free, grass fed and such) you could pay them a decent summer wage and get all your meat for less than the grocery store prices (I'm biased here as I paid for a portion of college by bottle feeding a few calves each summer and selling the meat for about $2.00/lb plus about $50 for the butcher.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I don't own a flat screen TV, but I would like one. Not because I want to be on the cutting edge or because I want to impress my friends, but because:
I don't consider either of those to be particularly "emotional" reasons.
nonsense. You never have to recalibrate convergence. Poor viewing angle? Sounds like plasma to me. High power usage? Not like the price difference matters. Burn in? Today?
What you say is complete FUD.
Color theory dictates a gamma of about 3.0 for our eye's perception of color; i.e. the cube root of voltage changes appear to be about the same distance apart in color space. The L*A*B* color space reflects this.
All output devices except CRT's are more or less linear, gamma about 1, thus the DAC's need LOTS of bits to represent differences near black without contouring/banding - or without lots of dithering noise added in. The good old CRT has a native gamma of about 2.2, better than square root, but not quite the cube root our eye sees. As a result many fewer bits in a DAC produce excellent results. Most good CRT's operate flawlessly with 10 to 12 bit DAC's, while at least 16 bits would be needed to equal this in a linear gamma display.
On another topic, CRT's can be scanned at the native rate of the video source, 720p or 1080i for HDTV; or, if desired, upsampled/deinterlaced by an INTEGER factor 2, 3 or 4 to 1. Fixed pixel displays require all kinds of fancy DSP chips to resample by odd factors and still don't look as good.
right on.... it drives me nuts that soy milk costs more than cow's milk too. It should be practically free.
#6495ED - cornflower blue
Hey, if I was rich, I'd plop money down for this. There's nothing more annoying about TV's than the fact that they are big and heavy. Me, an average
Don't get all excited - when you are in my tax bracket, my first thought, was "great, I just won the right to buy a $4499 TV for half price (after taxes)"; And I wasn't in the market for a $2250 TV!
After a prudent amount of skepticism [checking out the company that the fullfilment guy said he was from, etc] before turning over "1099" information, it seemed like the real deal. We really had won something. I inquired whether or not we could take cash in lieu of the TV. Having had first-hand experience with plasma burn-in (on the same set we had won, for a work project), I knew I didn't really want one.
The bottom line: "no cash", however, since the actual prize delivery was via our friends at Best Buy, I was able to finagle a deal with the local manager to do a one-time, use-it-or-lose-it buying spree for the value (which turned out to be "street" not "MSRP"). They just processed the TV as an in-store, no-receipt credit.
This turned out to be a much better deal than taking a TV. My daughter got a nice stereo, my younger son got lots of video games. The big ticket items were a DV camcorder and a Toshiba laptop. Toss in some nice Boston Acoustic clock-radios that I otherwise wouldn't have purchased at $150 each, and some blank DVD media and the family was much better off than taking one expensive, short-lived Plasma TV.
I mean, how much better could Sponge Bob look on a big screen? I'll stick to my Costco (Toshiba) 32" CRT for now (landfills be damned, someday).
Now, I only hope that 1099 says "only" $3699+sales tax. I feel much better paying taxes equivalent to a bunch of useful "half-price" stuff than I ever would have paying close to $2000 for one TV with 80 channels of crap on the cable.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
... though I like the brightness and flatness (no pincushion or pixel adjustment necessary) of LCDs, I still prefer a great CRT with 75+hz refresh, rich color and high resolution (>=1920x1200).
I also find that LCD dot pitch tends a bit low (1280x1024 on a 19" screen? puh-leeze.. 1600x1200 is more like it) for reasonable pricing.
Then again, I'd take a 3-chip DLP or D-ILA FP display any day, as long as it was 1080p.. (that is, if it doesn't currently exist..)
I came to the same conclusion about people's perception of CRTs as being inferior and mentioned it while disussing the upcoming SED -based TVs from Canon/Toshiba (SED Inc.) that will unite the quality aspects of traditional CRTs with the thinner form factor of the latest display technology. Keep in mind that several companies are planning to release Thin CRTs as well.
Coz' it makes me kew!
Seriously, CRT is definitely a better picture and tt was definitely an emotional purchase except for one overriding factor.
I didn't want to lug up a 300 lb 50" TV screen up stairs to my apartment.
The picture had looked fantastic at the store, but when I got it home into a lower light setting, ooh boy... My plasma magnified every mpeg artifact in the DirectTV compression. Color banding was everywhere. Watching Band of Brothers episode 4 (I believe) resulted in a great primal scream from me. (It's the episode where they sneak up to the German camp on a foggy night with a full moon in the background. All I could see was 64 shades of gray coming off the moon in circular bands. Jeep headlights in that same episode exhibited the same problem).
However, with the proper calibrations (using a dvd like video essentials) you can get a decent picture. You can get an even better picture with DVD material using an upconverting DVD player with DCDI (especially if your Plasma/LCD TV doesn't have good picture correction to begin with.)
But take away the geeky sexiness of it, if they had a lighter wide screen CRT, I'd probably be looking at that.
Flat panels are much easier on the eyes. CRT can cause headaches and eye strain.
I have an LCD panel driven via DVI and find the display to be crisper than the CRT I had before.
Is the perceved superiority of CRTs (as mentioned in the article) because most people just plug LCD screens into the old analog output from their video card?
... or am I just imagining things?
You are wrong about TV refresh rates. NTSC has 60FPS refresh rate and PAL 50Hz. So, you need maximum 16.7ms refresh rate to view NTSC and 20ms to view PAL.
They're getting better and cheaper all the time. Over Christmas, two members of my immediate family bought themselves projectors instead of a new TV. One was looking at spending $3000 on a 62" rear projection TV, but instead picked up one of those BenQ SVGA projectors for under $1000 CDN. The screen is easily twice the size, and they're just blown away by the clarity and how their Xbox looks on it with component cables.
Of course this solution doesn't fit all comers, as you have to put the projector somewhere that doesn't always see direct sunlight, and you need something to provide the signal (cable box, DVD player, game system, VCR with tuner, etc) and the audio (most use a stereo or 5.1 home theatre system), but in the end a lot of people I know who have gone the projector route are far happier with it than if they just got the TV. And in the majority of cases it's cheaper too. Even factoring in replacement bulbs. As my brother-in-law summed it up: "After everything is said and done, this is costing me $0.15 an hour to have a movie theater experience in my TV room!"
If you think it could easily be cheaper, produce it, undercut the competition, and make a killing.
/. what I ment to say was:
Wait, this is
1. Produce cheap soy milk
2. Sell it under cost. "practically free" (You can make up for this in volume)
3. ???
4. Profit
Consumers are constantly being told that newer is better and that new is progress. LCD and plasma displays are newer than CRTs, and therefore they must be better. Americans may not be progressive politically, but we're quite "progressive" technologically.
#Turning Economics Lecture Mode ON#
The reason veggie burgers are more expensive is not too much demand from those yuppies, but just not enough supply from producers. There isn't a big supply because there isn't a big demand at any price. Most people prefer real meat.
To get the economies of scale needed to provide cheap veggie burgers, a lot more people would need to want to eat veggie burgers.
As to your Grandpa getting cheap "organic" food, my guess is that relative to his income, his "organic" food was more expensive than your organic food is relative to your income. Food prices have declined sharply over the last century.
evanchik.net
The article talks about the picture quality of televisions, and the lower quality of many of the flat screen TVs, but what I am wondering is, how accurate of a picture do people really need on their TV?
It's not like people are doing 3D modeling or something that requires a very sharp picture on their TVs, most people just want to watch TV or DVDs and play games.
A lot of the time, IMHO anyway, TV, movies and games look better if they are not super-clear anyway.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Practically nothing is being done at 48-bit. Never really was. Thirty-six bit was common for a while (what people in the biz call "12-bit integer"), but it's basically gone the way of the dodo now.
Virtually all film and d-cinema work is being done in OpenEXR format now, which uses 32-bit floating-point pixels. Video work, of course, is all done in 10-bit integer. Well, not all. A surprising amount of it is still being done in 8-bit integer. But the pro stuff is practically all 10-bit.
While it's true that neither CRT nor LCD monitors can handle the complete dynamic range of 32-bit floating-point, LCD is quite a bit closer. DLP comes closest, of course, which is why it's being used in new movie theaters.
Interestingly, OpenEXR support is native in Mac OS X Tiger. That's the power of the BSD license, right there.
Everybody knows that there is nothing that beats good old CRT in the area of display quality. And resolution.
:)
CRT just cannot be easily scaled up to the sizes preferred by now almost blind american coach potatos
Plasma, on the other hand, is a joke. Poor colors, scaled resolutions, fast image degradiation. But it's sexy. And renders pink really well.
It's simple - looking for quality and sharpness - choose good CRT. Loewe or really really good sony will do. Have a lust for wall sized images - good DLP front projectors can be had for price so ridicilous it makes me weep.
Oh, and have an additional requirement - impress chicks, well, go plasma. They will immediately know you are techno geek or simply brain damaged.
one field is still different from the next in regular video, in effect it still is 50/60fps, it's just that only half the frame has been updated.
So, you need maximum 16.7ms refresh rate to view NTSC and 20ms to view PAL
:/)
Yeah so? with the wide choice of lcds rated at 12 and 16ms pixel response, that is very possible. Problem is, it seems that most of them rated at 12ms are 17" and 19" but for LCD's the 17/19 always had the best specs as opposed to 20/20.1 so it shouldn't be long. we will have big monitors with those pixel response rate before DNF! (Sorry, but too easy
Those fancy Princeton 19" LCD's still max out at 1280x1024. Look at LCD's in the 1600 range, and you'll see the prices double. And have fun playing down-res'd games. Of course, my NEC MultiSync 21" goes up to 2048x1536, but can play games at 800x600 if I need the high framerates, yet only cost $550. Go figure.
"Yeah, but try moving it around!" you might retort.
How often do you move around your screen? Twice. When you move in, and when you move out. Big deal. If I wanted a portable screen, I'd have to get a portable computer as well. We call those laptops.
because of subsidies. Our entire economy is geared towards cheap beef. If you look at parts of the world where beef isn't heavily subsidised it's often a pricy luxury. Beef's cheap because you already paid for half of it when you wrote your check to Uncle Sam for taxes this year.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yes, so any individual pixel only needs to show 30 FPS, because it is only updated once every other 60 FPS frame. Today's good LCDs have pixel response times of 16 ms or better, which is actually better than 60 FPS anyway. So LCD TVs are fine, and most people who claim otherwise are spouting gibberish they heard secondhand on some internet forum (other than Slashdot, of course ;-). It's possible that some (cheapo) models of LCD TV use older LCDs with refresh rates worse than the baseline of 25 ms, but specific models are never cited by those who bash LCDs. To condemn all LCD TVs as worse than CRTs is just horseshit, in the words of the above Anonymous Coward. LCDs have so many advantages over CRTs it's not even funny.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
"Sell it under cost. ... (You can make up for this in volume)"
I find your business strategy intriguing. May I please subscribe to your newsletter?
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
I was indecisive for a few months on getting a new TV. We're at the start of a transition. The 36" & 40" CRTs are probably the best pictures I've seen..but they are massive, and 4:3.
If you watch lots of TV on lots of different channels (most will be in 4:3), then get one of those, or even just buy a $200 27" CRT. cos in a few years HDTV will be phased in.
If you watch mostly network TV, or the other HDTV channels (ESPN, Discovery, HBO & movie channels, we only get about 15 here now out of a few hundred regular ones) or mostly movies, then get a HDTV now! The sports stuff (mainly football) looks completely amazing. & newer movies (unfortunately only big studio ones) will blow you away. Sopranos in HD will definitely have people flocking to your house too.
Most of the cable channels are NOT HD/16:9 (at least here): Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, CNN, IFC, Sundance, all other HBOs except for main one, History. This leads to a stretched picture, or bars on the side to keep it 4:3. this is the suck part I mentioned earlier.
With Netflix tho, I watch a movie a night & you gotta have widescreen, unfortunately the largest 16:9 CRT TV I've seen was 30-33", which might be ok for a small bedroom but its really super tiny screen.
I personally like the LCD projection ones, 42", 50", 60"..less than half the price of HDTV plasma (EDTV plasma is lower resolution), not as thin but lots thinner than other projections of the same size...so not cheap, but affordable for home theater types.
.. from Samsung. Well not as slim as LCD and Plasmas, but thin enough to convince my wife to let me buy one. Do Google on Samsung thin CRT.
Except where are you going to find a 42" Widescreen CRT? Goodluck.
I also have the Dell 2001FP, and a 21" CRT at work. The Dell is by far clearer, and has a better viewing angle - as long as the frame of the monitor isn't in the way, you can see the screen from any angle. Bonus: Takes up very little of my desk space, and runs perfectly clear 1600x1200 resolution (and is just as large as your 21").
Also MUCH easier on the eyes. I still have my old CRT one desk over, and I have no idea how I managed with it for so many years.
There are a LOT of cheap LCDs out there - poor viewing angles, big pixel gaps, bad contrast, (like my cheapo laptop screen). But these things are SWEEET.
It's funny to see people spend an extra $800 to $1000 on a computer that won't be noticably faster than a lower model for what they're doing, yet balk at spending $800 on something that will actually make a significant difference to their experience.
paintball
The other day I did the LOTR extended marathon, all three in a row. Drove to my friend's place to watch because they have a large Samsung LCD HDTV (I dunno exact size, but larger than my 27 inch crt television.)
The TV is fairly new and expensive. The owner has more money than TV knowledge however, as I brought my monster component cable because they had their dvd player hooked up through a standard AV cable.
Anyhow, I was horrified by how terrible the color black looked (this was my first extensive viewing on one of these TVs). Shelob, for instance, looked horrible. There was no smooth gradient of gray and black, but rather pixelated bands of grays. I should have stayed home and watched them on my CRT.
Someone gave me an old Tosh laptop, it was DOA, but with a 15" LCD, so I brought it back from the dead, and now I use it all the time because I noticed that I don't get any eye strain at all from viewing it after long periods of time.
I can't say that about any CRT I've ever used.
Works for me, but I'm not a gamer either.
Also, the article is a little dated in terms of what it talks about. Especially with the "... the consumer versions of which are limited to about 42 inches" which is VERY out of date. 50" plasmas are very available, and even affordable. 45" and 46" LCD's are available, but are scarse due to high demand (especially for the 45" Sharp). Sharp supposedly has a 65" and 70" LCD comming out in the next generation due in about 4-6 months. There are 70" and 80" plasma's being worked on with higher resolution. And these are all consumer level products, which do not include the industrial versions as well as the other large industrial panels that are available as well, many of which offer better quality as the CQ is much more intense (i.e. no dead pixel policies, longer warrenties)
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
RCA to BNC connectors are $1 at Radio Shack. Or if you want to buy a new cable, you can buy one with RCA on one end and BNC on the other for $20.
My other first post is car post.
Easy to prove as well. The simplest way to see it is in the contrast ratio. That's a term LCD manufacturers like to throw around. Why? Well because it matters, LCDs suck at doing black, they don't get a very dark black. So it's a big deal if you can get a better ratio. The 600:1 or 700:1 numbers sound impressive until you realise that even cheap CRTs are generally better than 2000:1. They simply have a greater dynamic range of colour they can handle.
You can also see it for yourself, if you like. Try a side-by-side comparison some day and check out some different things like colour gradients. You'll notice that the LCD graidents tend to be a little banded, whereas the CRT ones are smooth. Also you can see it if you compare light colours with low saturation. A light lavendar will look colourful on a CRT, but look like a barely blue grey on an LCD.
It's one of three reasons I still like CRTs (price and arbitrary resolution capability being the other two). I lvoe the way my LCD at work looks for text, but at home I have a CRT for video and games.
I recently got a 15" Sharp Aquos. The picture quality compares very favorably with the Sony Wega TV I have. I have a Dell 19" LCD monitor. I don't get nearly as fatigued looking at it because I can't discern any retrace flicker.
In the 80s, I worked at RCA's TV set design facility. I became sensitive to video quality there. I just don't agree with this reviewer's assesment. CRTs are definitely less expensive, particularly for larger screen sizes but I like the LCD's picture better. There's less power dissipation and heat with LCD sets. They're lighter and take up less space.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
How can you forget digital light projection televisions. These Tv's can produce the best contrast ratios and the most colors for the least amount of cost. They also dont suffer from screen burn like CRT and plasma. They also dont have motion blur like LCD screens. With television depths of 1 foot for a 50' they fit anywhere.
Actually, your "organically grown, chemical and gmo free vegetables" DO cost more to raise than our "normal" vegetables. For example, if you have an infestation of pests in a crop and can't use chemicals to get rid of them, at minimum you lose part of the crop and possibly lose the whole thing. The same would apply to plant diseases. If a harsh season hits an area where gmo-treated vegetables will survive but "organic" (Lord, how I hate that word in this context) vegetables die, then which is going to cost more?
Of course, the myth that somehow genetically altering vegetables is automatically "a bad thing" is tedious, but I'll avoid digressing further since we're already off-topic.
Yes, there are bound to be markups on your special veggies if businesses feel the market will bear them. But even if people were NOT out to make as much profit as possible (they are), growing "pure" vegetables using old-fashioned methods will always end up costing more than growing the same vegetables using modern methods.
Also, the article is a little dated in terms of what it talks about. Especially with the "... the consumer versions of which are limited to about 42 inches" which is VERY out of date.
It's talking about CRTs being limited to 42 inches.
It's a combination of two things:
1) Most people prefer real meat. Sorry, but its' true. By a wide margin, most of the world's population are meat eaters. Well as we all know, as production volume scales up, price per unit scales down.
2) Organicly grown vegatables are far more expensive to grow. Despite what you may have heard, it's not sustainable with the current world demands for food. We could supply maybe 50% of the food necessary using purely organic methods. Thus, organic foods use more space and produce less returns than modern foods.
Please also remember to keep vegatarian and organic as seperate concepts. It's one thing to talk about replacing a cattle farm with a modern plant farm, it's a very different thing to talk about replacing that modern farm with an organic one.
Also on the GMO thing here's a tpoic to think about: We've been practising genetic engineering seince Gregor Medel via selective breeding. Nearly all the plant based food you get in a first world nation, inclding organic, is modified.
How long before we see a CRT vs LCD study from a human health perspective?
1 6/1423201&tid=126&tid=14Recent Slashdot article on glaucoma and CRT Computer Monitors.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/
If it isn't, I do have a problem.
Yeah, CRTs are cost effective. Sure.
That is, if you don't count the $1000 it'll cost you to replace the tubes due to burn-in every few years.
Or the $500 it'll cost you to have it calibrated every year to keep that "sharper" picture.
Yeah, I've gotten 6 years out of a CRT HDTV - on it's third tube set and it needs another recal. Sharper? Hah! And with no DRM interface, it's getting obsolete real fast.
But then, that's at least 3 more years than you'd get out of a plasma and doesn't suck like DLP with the screen doors and rainbows.
LCOS where are you?!?
> cat ~/.signature | grep -v bullshit
>
I recommend either not bringing up your girl's acne problems when you get close to her or drinking more. It's your choice.
Oh, and sit back on the couch when you're watching TV. You won't enjoy anything if you watch from 2 feet all the time.
My other first post is car post.
I think before any one complains about these TV's being hype they should come over to my house and watch for a few minuties.
Where do you live? Do you have stairs in your house?
My other first post is car post.
Perhaps not the best way to market the falling CRT demand, but one good thing is that at least you know that the larger the crt the less chance of it getting stolen vs a nice and expensive small and lightlcd/plasma display.
...is that they're heavy. My Sony 36" CRT HDTV weighs just a tad under 300lb. I had to build a special moving crate out of 3/4" plywood and 2x4s in order to move it up a flight of stairs. The crate is basically a plywood box cut in half diagonally with the 2x4s attached outside for structure, and 1" of foam insulation inside for padding. The TV gets secured in the box with ratcheting tie downs, then the box gets secured to an appliance dolly and then four 200lb guys move the whole 400+lb of TV/box/dolly up the stairs one heave at a time. Oh what fun.
:D
Making things better is the fact that these televisions have absolutely no structure to them whatsoever. The whole case bends when you just pick the thing up. It's about the scariest item I've ever moved. One minor error will write the whole thing off.
All that said, I absolutely love the thing on every day except moving day
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
Sure CRT might give a sharper image and all, but my home is oh so small, and I had so many difficulties fitting even this sweet 50 inch panel screen...
Samsung Pavv
Gnome: A never ending quest to make unix friendly to people who don't want unix and excruciating for those that do.
My rear projection self calibrates the convergence, so that's no longer an issue on a modern set. (of course you can still put it into a manual 64-pt convergence function, which takes about 20 minutes. but most videophile forums say that the auto convergence is almost as good as the manual, especially at 720p and below).
Dimness can be a factor if you watch movies in direct sunlight. (I suppose most people put RP tv in their living room instead of a nice dark and cozy den).
One problem with rear projection is that the quality of the picture can vary dramatically between brands. The difference between my Mitsubishi and my buddy's Sony is pretty dramatic.
But for the most part your post hit the nail on the head. RJ has a lot of drawbacks, but if you want a really large crisp screen cheaply, it's certainlly wroth considering. And CRT HDTV is nice if you don't mind a heavy set and smaller picture.
There are some CRT HDTVs that are 3:4 and just do letterbox for 16:9 signals. They actually are extremely crisp for 3:4 viewing because they are true 1080i in the letterbox form, so there are a lot of extra lines in 3:4 mode (but the extra lines are filled in artificially with some fancy circuitry which helps produce a crisper brighter picture).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I couldn't possibly agree with this article more.
Flat panels are a DECREASE in quality in most cases but due to the slimness of them and people sitting far enough away, consumers are happy to use them - now marketing people are selling them as the "ultimate picture quality"
A very high quality HDTV CRT will blow any flat panel away, period.
The only real issue is CRT is generally smaller than what RP / LCD / Plasma can acheive.
(I have a 36" I beleive 40" is the largest possible)
Oh and for reference I saw the following technologies in action before I chose my TV.
(all High def models)
Rear projection standard CRT tube
Rear projection LCD
LCD
Plasma
DLP
3 Toshiba
LCD monitors and projectors degrades really fast. You can see vast difference in quality just after one year of usage. This is confirm by Epson's engineers which point it out to their customer. They were pushing for DLP projectors that time.
I will choose CRT monitors anytime. Given the high price of LCD as compared to CRTs. And it's degradation.
How much real estate is your TV using? If your house is small (and expensive like in most metropolis down town areas), you value the real estate your TV takes up higher than picture quality or the extra price of a flat TV.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
I looked up the ebay auction the article was referencing. From the specs:
(1) RGBHV input for HDTV receivers, PC, MAC input and video line doublers, scalers and processors
So I guess you're right. However, you might not need any amplifier if that input is usable with PC input. Maybe there's just an input sensitivity switch.
To anyone buying that projector, they'd need to buy a new green CRT, btw.
My other first post is car post.
Not true. The demand is there. Have you ever worked in a grocery store? The shrink on vegetarian products is *huge*. Hell, a lot of my vegetarian friends lift that stuff all the time because they can't afford it, but don't want to go back to eating meat. Myself, I just started eating meat, but I'd love to go back to being vegetarian.
There's a lot of vegetarians, but even more importantly, there's a lot of omnivores who like vegan/vegetarian food. There was even a big article about that in, I think, the NY Times, about how foods like that are mainstream, and not a niche anymore because of people who aren't vegetarian, but like to eat veggie burgers.
The demand is there, but the "stupid rich" are keeping the price high because #turning economics lecture mode on# the producers will charge what the market will bear. Nobody would pay $6 for a box of macaroni and cheese, but dumb yuppies will gladly plunk down $6 for a pack of four veggie burgers.
That said they're heavier and more cumbersome to move, they use substantially more electricity, produce substantially more heat, and take up more space that could be better used in a variety of ways... despite being CRT free my living room is cramped as it is.
There are many compelling reasons to purchase LCDs even if you don't take into account that the quality of CRTs degrades much quicker than LCDs, and without regular tuneups the initial difference in picture quality will become relatively meaningless.
my personal experience is that LCD are much more comfortable than CRTs on the eyes for reading text. Plus subpixel fonts give definite improvements.
On a LCD i almost never get eye strain even after looking at the screen all day for days. On a CRT I have problems after a day of sustained reading from the screen.
I work in an IT store and stare at new CRT and LCD screens most of the day, without a shadow of a doubt the CRT has a far clearer and crisper image. (to my eyes anyway) I agree most people just get LCD because they think it is the latest technology so it must be the best. If someone comes in wanting to do serious graphic work I alway direct them to the top end CRT screens.
eye strain's caused by lots of things - in my case it was usually the high voltage charge on a 21" CRT screen surface firing dust particles into my eyes 8 hours a day, drying out my contacts and making me feel like i'd got low-grade flu 5 days a week. swapped to an LCD and no problems since...
manufacturer's stated response times are meaningless. Go look at the articles on tom's hardware about it. Black -> white time means pretty much nothing, intermediate-colour-one -> intermediate-colour-two time is what matters. And it's guaranteed that's nowhere near the manufacturer's stated response time. I've never seen any LCD TV without motion blurring.
High resolution screens mixed with lackluster standard resolution images is a match made in hell.....
Switch you beautiful 1280 x 1024 res for 640 x 480 on a screen with native 1280 x 1024 res and see what I mean... it gets all blurry and pseudo-pixelated...
CRTs/Tube tech and low res signals were made for each other... they can't help but be the best combination.
Hi-res screens such as LCD/Plasma will benefit from HDTV and newer hi-res broadcasts today and tomorrow.
It's true though that a standard TV signal looks worse on a screen never designed to show it's poor quality signal.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Buy a digital projector (and possibly a screen). The picture quality is fantastic on the recent models I've had experience of, and with the right kind of screen and room lighting, you can even be finicky about brightness/contrast and still be happy.
Besides, it just has that "home cinema" feel.
If you work for really nice people, they might let you bring one home from work! More fool them (and you if you can't afford to replace it). But if you trust yourself, it's a cheap way to have a home cinema (and you can just use a wall rather than screen!)
I can testify that it's the only way to play games console car racing games . Or watch LOTR.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Well isn't thin cool always? At least that's what our society has told us for a long time, and especially for female. So it isn't surprising that advertisers would throw "a thin-card" in the table because they know that thin-brainwashing has been most succesfull to people in the past. But just wait few years to TFT-technology to advance and they'll be at least in the same line with hi-quality CRT:s. Then we can have thing gf, thin screen, überthin laptop, and as a bonus, our imagination also gets thinner :P
What do they mean when they say the image is sharper? Are they referring to contrast ratio? Because that's not what most people mean when they hear the word sharp. CRT's definitely don't have as good resolution (potentially) as flat panels, so flat panels win there. And flat panels are lighter, and smaller. Moreover, LCD's don't suffer from the annoying electric hum that gives me a headache whenever I'm watching a CRT.
I don't mind them trying to play up the consumer appeal of flat panel displays market hype, but they should at least provide some justification for saying that CRT's are better. I know that CRT's win out in contrast ratio, but that's a pretty small part of the overall picture in terms of image quality. I, for one, will never buy another CRT.
Having lived both in the US and UK and spent half a lifetime hanging around in audio visual stores and owning various technologies, it is patently obvious simply by looking at CRT based TVs next to flat panel TVs just how much better the CRTs are from brightness, colour rendition and lack of pixelization. Most purchased of flat panels are simply (and I suppose rightly) because they are more attractive, save space and use less power. This is mainly because CRT manufacturers have spent 50 years improving the technology, while the (consumer) flat panel TV business is only a few years old.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Yes correct ..but for their bulkiness CRT rules !
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
You call this News?!
Personally, I enjoy looking at LCD and Plasma screens much more than CRT. The two things that sold me and probably most on LCD and Plasma over CRT monitors are:
Brightness
Viewing Angle
More counter/desk/floor space as a result.
It is obvious this article was written and funded by CRT manufacturers telling us how foolish we are buying for these silly reasons.
If U got slashdot tattooed on your skin you must be a real die-hard-core nerd...
and I thought they where extinct and replaced by MSCE's!
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
At work we just new nice new 17" LCDs. The picture on mine is no perfect, clear and saturated it nearly looks like a painting. The CRT it replaced was nowhere near the quality of this. Neither is the 21" Viewsonic P810 Graphics monitor I have at home for the kids.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I've noticed artifacting and some rare color-banding in satellite TV, are the transmissions in 16-bit MPEG-2 instead of 24-bit?
Do you know about digital cameras? I'm really disappointed when I see today's $400 models with "patches" of redish, greenish, and blue-grayish "ISO" noise just because the shot wasn't taken in bright sun. JPEG artifacting, even at 3MB per 5 megapixel image, annoys me too. I look in for detail of a shot, and am rewarded with a grainy square. Seems like JPEG exacerbates the ISO noise. I haven't bought a digicam yet, still researching, but I'm leaning towards only those that offer TIFF or RAW for the above reasons. My impressions from using Photoshop is that letting it compress TIFF's into JPEGs will produce a much better looking image in the same filesize than if the camera itself does it in a hurry.
What that tells me is that this "mainstream" demand for veggie burgers isn't particularly large, in fact is quite small. It's not as if this is a market that is hard to get into for small manufacturers. There is no big bad monopoly that controls supply.
Hence it's completely unreasonable to explain the high price based on demand from one segment of the market place making manufacturers ignore another - if the demand had truly been there, and manufacturing costs are actualy low, the low barrier to entry into the market means there would have been a lot of competition driving prices down.
I will choose CRT over LCD anytime until I earn $10K/month or so ;) Then I will discard old LCD and buy a new one way before it degrades :)
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Yep. I had a cadre of physicists, engineers, and architects work out where to put my TV in case I wanted to watch it from bed, my desk, or the computer. Oh wait. No I didn't. I got a flatscreen CRT and put it wherever the hell I wanted.
We can deduce that "wherever the hell I wanted" never included hanging it on your wall, right?
Though I'd be interested to see someone hanging a 36" CRT on his/her wall... "in other news today, an apartment block collapsed, killing 27 people and injuring 35 more. Police believe the cause was a Slashdotter attempting to hang his Sony WegaMegaMuthafucka 50-inch CRT screen on a wall on the second floor, bringing the whole north-facing side of the block down with it."
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I'll raise the bullshit flag on some these comments...I have had regular old CRT TVs my life and never once, even after 10 years of regular use, have I noticed any burn-in on any of my sets. Also, I have never had to recalibrate anything accept maybe the channel programming. Until you can get a Flat panel under $200 most people won't bother.
I have 2 flatscreens.
A 23" apple cinema display and a toshiba 42" plasma.
Both I feel look better than CRT, they are certainly more punchy with more contrast, at least in my opinion.
My television, stereo, and computers are all on the same circuit (which also contains most of the lighting in my place). I recently plugged a laser printer into that circuit, and the current draw when I turned it on was enough to make the uninterruptible power supply on the computer kick over to battery (I moved that printer to a different circuit, but that's not an option for the other things).
So, I'd like LCDs just to reduce the load on that circuit. Rewiring would be extremely expensive, and (because of the way the wiring is laid out) there just isn't any way to reorganize to get things off that circuit.
--RJ
Viewing angle?????? That word was unknown before the LCD era. It's a strictly LCD-related problem [..] CRT has full 180 degrees viewing angle
:)
Let me tell you something. My parents' colour television just celebrated its 22nd birthday (*). When I was younger, I used to prefer sitting on the chair that was beside the TV. Trust me when I say that the curvature of older CRTs *did* limit how far to the side you could view them from. So don't tell me that viewing angle wasn't an issue for CRTs in the old days, or that they all have a 180-degree view.
It was only when I was at their house for Christmas that I realised what a goldfish bowl this thing was.
Other "cool" features include its 21" size, light-grey screen (I'm sure that helped the contrast lots..), front-facing single speaker at the side, 8(!) individual channel buttons (though they were "microtouch" with an LCD display; hi-tech at the time, which shows you how old this TV is). Oh yeah, and mechanical channel-tuning and *no remote control* (you had to buy a more expensive model for that).
That damn thing is now so old, it's cool.
But it's still a CRT, and you're still wrong.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The one word I keep hearing here is "cheap." Apparently those of you who can't afford LCD TVs are trying to convince yourselves that you really have it better than those of us who can, because, wonder of wonders, it's BETTER! I have only one word for you guys, and it starts with BULL...
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Yeah, I know the advantages of a CRT display over plasma, but the layout of my family room made it awkward to place a big, heavy TV in a place that it would look "right". So I got a 42" Panasonic plasma and mounted it over the fireplace. It frees up floor space (although I guess I can't hang a picture over the fireplace now, darn) and it looks *incredible* (HD TiVo). Trust me, it's not like people walk in and say "well that looks OK, but I bet it would look even BETTER if you had bought a CRT display".
I guess I made an emotional purchase, but 6 months later, I have no regrets.
What if the Hokey-Pokey really is what it's all about?
The main reason most people buy LCDs is because they look cool. I can think of no better example of an "emotional purchase" than that.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The article missed out on one great advantage of Plasma panels over CRTs/Projection monitors. CRTs reflect a lot of light and has a bad glare when there is a lot of light falling on the CRT. Plasmas on the contrary, reflect less light, and hence is good when viewed under light. Plasmas, hence, are an obvious choice for high resolution show room display panels. It also makes a good choice for that TV in the lawn.
Increase your vertical refresh rate. I run at 75Hz and eyestrain isn't a problem.
Best Slashdot Co
I think it has to do with demand being more than supply can accomondate (due to problems in production) , shifting the shupply curve to the left and therefore creating a new equilibrium price that is higher.
You need to remember that organically grown food is more difficult and more expensive to produce (that's the reason we created genetically engineered food in the first place).
As long as they can not lower their cost of production (so that they can produce more) then any increase in demand will be an increase in price.
Now, if indeed economies of scale could be created past a certain 'point' that has not yet been reached i can not say (nor can anyone here). But given that we created genetically engineered food (and whetever other methods) so we could lower cost and increase production, thus reducing prices, then reverting back to older methods may mean that we might never (well, never say never.. but anyway) be able be able to provide organic food at the same prices as the food floodign the markets today.
So it's not just a matter of 'the demand being there' but most importantly of difficulties in mass producing organic food.
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
A fairly recent roundup of HDTV sets did indeed yield a CRT "big box" unit as the best....after calibration.
The thing is that those sets are on the way out. The technology is not being substantially developed for the future. They're a dead end...eventually.
Flat panel sets, either DLP or LCD (and others) may not be 100% there yet, but they will be.
K.
Most 30-32 inch widescreen CRTs I looked at were 480i, only 1 was 540p.
Hardly what I would call HDTV, even though that is what they are advertised as.
Any real 1280x720 sets out there? With computer inputs?
While it is true that flat panels are a fraction of the weight of their counterparts, how often do you move your TV around? Unless you want to mount it on a wall (good luck with that viewing angle) you put your TV somewhere and it stays there.
I am not discounting the weight difference, but I really doubt that it has much to do with consumers buying decisions. It is about getting the latest and greatest. My brother commented over the holidays that he wanted to replace his TV with a flat panel one. I asked him what was wrong with his TV, and he said "nothing. Flat panels are cool."
We have been conditioned to buy buy buy, for no particular reason. It's all about the stuff.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
There's no point to getting a computer LCD then a tuner when an LCD TV costs the same. I bought my LCD for space considerations more than anything else. I like available space. I have more seating in my living room and more space to walk through because I don't have a giant idiot box forcing everything closer together. Now it's an idiot panel and stays out of the way.
Laws are for people with no friends.
While I agree, there's more to it than that. I'm constantly asked my opinion on what tech to buy, while my answer is ignored. The people who ask already have an answer, so they don't like mine...and buy what they want anyway. (Example: Everyone outside of business who I've installed Linux for has asked me -- none were talked into it.)
Case in point: My brother in law is a smart, frugle guy. Getting sick of his desk being dominated by a spare 17 inch tube Dell (Sony) monitor I gave him last year, he calls me up and asks if now is the time to buy a 17 inch flat screen. I told him 'Get a cheap monitor stand now, in 6 months get a real nice flat panel for less'.
He already made up his mind, though. Knowing I love tech he thought I'd agree with him. Guess what he did?
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Something missing altogether from the article is any mention of power consumption. A typical CRT monitor burns 120 watts while an LCD can work with 30 watts. Depending on your electrical rates, this can translate into hundreds of dollars a year. It also lowers the load on your UPS during a brownout, which means it's more likely your complete system will be able to stay up for extended periods of time.
While a CRT can offer superior contrast ratios, a quality LCD can provide 500:1 or better (CRT's are generally 1000:1). The advent of OLED will help LCD's advance in this area, and quite likely surpass CRT's in the very near future.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
Specs are here. 1440 x 900. It's the best HDTV picture I have seen. The XBR for $200 more has a DVI-D input, but the HDMI input on my set can take a DVI to HDMI adapter and be used as a PC monitor.
...
:)
The sharpness, color saturation, and brightness of this set far exceeded anything else being offered on the sales floor of the Best Buy where I found it, and after a visit by a Sony tech to adjust the electron gun focus I wouldn't trade it for any plasma or rear projector I've seen.
Samsung has an LCD that does true 1080P, but from what I understand the panel has problems with brightness, blurring, and contrast
CRT technology is completely mature. I don't know that it can get any better, but from my own personal experience it's definitely not a technology that has anything to prove. Granted, my set is a two hundred pound behemoth, but that's a tradeoff I was willing to give for the best picture in the electronics store.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
You know, if you take the resolving power of the center of the human eye, and the degrees of vision you have (about 180 by 120 degrees for full horizontal and vertical wrap-around, relative to your head), you find the max you need to see anywhere in that feild perfectly is about 10800 by 7200 pixels. Ah, but transient events! Fighter pilots can detect mommentary events lasting only one 250th of a second.
So, the ultimate display comes out at:
10800x7200
250Hz refresh
48-bit colour depth
Mmmm, tasty.
Never accept any form of entertainment unless it has been sent through the ether as many times as possible through the ether, that's what I say.
Check out my home theater system: giant CRT and audio fed through a vacuum tube amplifier. Next thing I'm going to do is put a satellite tuner in the garage, a PVR in the spare bedroom, and my home theater in the den, then hook it all up by wi-fi.
After that, I'll install a web cam so I can enjoy all this etheric goodness on my Sprint card equipped PDA while sitting in my office cubicle, because I can't ever afford to stop working.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In price per unit, it is cheaper to produce organic grown food than regular commercial grown with pesticide and et al. The difference is that you will not get as a big a yield. Accept smaller yeilds and it becomes very economically viable to grow organic.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Does that $35k include the forklift required to move it?
You have to be very careful with projectors.
While they have come down in price significantly and they offer a great picture, the bulbs still don't last long enough, and they are very expensive.
It would be one thing if the bulbs were resonably priced but paying $500 every six months for new bulbs when the machine only cost $800 is silly.
Projectors are good if you don't use them too much. But if you use them a lot, as your normal TV, bulb life is a problem.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
The articles credibility is somewhat suspect. They say, "LCDs are great as desktop PC monitors because they don't have to refresh pictures rapidly" uhhh...yes they do. You're talking about gaming where you're trying to get at least 85FPS on an 85HZ monitor versus a TV which is displaying 30FPS at max. So pretty much the opposite of what the article says is true there...
A CRT can't ever give as sharp and clear a picture as an LCD monitor.
A CRT's pixels will always be less defined than an LCD's at least because of some unavoidable divergence of the electron beam.
Off the top of my head it doesn't look like I'll be paying FICA or Medicare on top of everything else, but that adds another %12.4 on your first 87,900 (only 2.9% above that). The tax code is so bad, I don't really know what I am paying until I figure it out, in April.
So, it looks like my $3986.74 "free shopping spree" will cost me about $1474. Worst case $1570. Not too bad.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Plant a garden. That's what your grandmother did.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
For example, if you have an infestation of pests in a crop and can't use chemicals to get rid of them, at minimum you lose part of the crop and possibly lose the whole thing.
Well there's the kicker, you don't have to lose the whole thing to lose an entire field. Most farmers don't operate on really huge margins to begin with, so at what point do you say fuck it and just till the entire thing under? I'd say half, but I really don't know. So the other option is to harvest whatever you can get from a field and just charge a lot more. A lot of people just think stuff will always hop right out of the ground. Most years it's either too dry, too wet, some bug comes and eats everything, or some disease comes out of the woodwork and destroys everything. There's a reason why farmers can produce more now than they ever had, and it's not just because of machenery.
Well besides that, growing things without fertilizers means you never replinish the nutrients in the ground (or certainly not as fast as they need to be), so you have to let the ground rest more. So now you also have the added cost of not growing anything every few years (more often) on a given field.
Most issues with dry eyes (especially contact users) are because you don't blink enough when staring at a monitor. Dry eyes also tend to increase eye strain.
Basically, try blinking more.
My rear projection CRT based HDTV is stunning. Because each of the CRTs has a continuous phosphor coating it can display at any resolution without having to resample to the native display resolution. Plus, the color gamut is continoues and wider than any of the other competing technologies.
You know, I wrote this late last night, and I really shouldn't have. I left out some important stuff.
The OpenEXR format does include support for the 32-bit float pixel type, but it's not commonly used for color. Much more common is the "half" pixel type for color: 16-bit floats. The 32-bit float format is used for other types of image data, but rarely for color.
See, if you use the "half" format, you get about 30 f-stops of dynamic range, compared to about 7 f-stops in an 8-bit integer image. (You can squeeze that to 10 or 11 stops in 10-bit integer, but that's hardly much of an improvement.) That's plenty, and you can store your images in half the space. When you're looking at more than 36 MB per 2K frame for uncompressed 32-bit float, cutting that in half is a very big deal. (Lossless wavelet and ZIP compression can give you something on the order of another 1/3rd to 1/2 of your disk space back.)
What that means is that you can apply pretty extensive color correction to an OpenEXR "half" file without introducing artifacts or getting an unacceptable level of graininess. So "half" is good enough for color work. The 32-bit float format is available when you need even more precision. Typically that's for things like alpha channels and depth mattes.
The other important thing about OpenEXR's "half" is that it's bit-for-bit compatible with the "half" data type in the Cg language, which means that OpenEXR image data in "half" format can be passed to GPUs without conversion for processing in hardware. That's important.
All of this technology is available from ILM under a BSD license, which is how Apple was able to build it in to Mac OS X Tiger. I should have made that more clear, too. "Half," or 16-bit floating-point, is a native pixel format in Tiger, and OpenEXR is a native file format, and CoreImage supports downloading files in OpenEXR format straight to the GPU along with pixel algorithms or convolution kernels for transforming them. Amazingly fast. It's basically Photoshop with 10 times the color precision implemented entirely in hardware.
Anyway, I should have made all that clear last night. Blame it on the sleepy.
See, nobody believed that my 30 year old 13 inch black and white tv had a good picture, but this proves them all wrong.
Super Bowl party at my place!
Check out the Canon PowerShots. I've been extremely impressed with the low noise and color range in their pictures. My 3.2MP gives me 1.2 MB files that make for great 4x6 (I'm a bit anal though and wish I had a 5.0 MP)
IANAA but just to split hairs, you don't have to pay FICA or medicare on winnings. Only on income. The topic came up too with the Oprah cars. They were $28K cars that most of them had to pay about $7K for.
You're joking right?
My parents have been getting cheap organic food for the past five years now. They grow their own.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
The only thing I'm trying to calibrate on my HDTV 16:9 is getting xorg.conf to fit properly so I can use mythtv on it. Has anyone got this to work properly? I can see part of the desktop but it won't pan to the edges (can't see the task bar, etc). Text mode works fine. The only example I found on google was some guy who got a PAL 16:9 to work. I used his and changed necessary stuff. It is better but it still won't pan to the edges.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
It would be interesting to know the energy costs of making the LCD unit as opposed to that of a TV.
I'd like to know if buying an LCD is greener over the lifespan of the product.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
It sounds like the one making the emotional decision was the writer of that article. His reasoning in favor of CRT was sketchy, arguable, and dated at best.
:p
I understand some people will prefer CRTs. Nothing wrong with that, but I put them in the same group as the people who prefer listening to tube amps for the "warm" sound. Aesthetics are important, but I prefer my equipment to be as precise as possible.
I switched to LCD for a variety of reasons, probably the most influential is that my CRT monitor was about 3 or 4 years old, so it was too dim to display dark colors, even after recalibrating its tube output voltage, and it was blurry as hell, sometimes with a wavy appearance. I had 2 other SVGA CRTs before this, and they met the same fate in a matter of years. They looked great to start, but gradually degraded until using them was too hard on my eyes. Even new, I see a certain amount of fuzziness on CRTs that I can't stand. Now that most LCD manufacturers have a decent non-native resolution scaling system, I'd even prefer running an LCD in low-res to seeing a CRT normally. For one thing, on my LCD, a solid color is a solid color. Bright, and untextured. Even on the best CRT, I can see the pattern of physical pixels that make up the screen, giving it sort of a scaled/honeycomb look. I don't hear this complaint much, so I guess it's like being one of the few who sees a rainbow/green band on DLP TVs. I've noticed this ever since the transition from EGA to VGA, though back then, I remember it looked like random pixels had a sparkle to them. It never really bothered me until I owned an LCD and started to see SOLID colors though. Sometimes you can see a thin black grid on an LCD, but I don't mind since it's a 1:1 pixel representation.
Some people rag on LCDs for their color inaccuracy. This is ridiculous, and I'll explain why: If your job requires absolute color accuracy, you are a specialized market, and should probably keep using high-end CRTs. If you're anyone else, and don't need exact color to the nearest half-nanometer, you'll probably find that an LCD panel has brighter, more saturated colors, and yes, even better contrast than a consumer-grade CRT that ISN'T recalibrated weekly. Maybe a lower contrast RATIO, because LCDs use full-screen backlighting and black is almost always a little grey, but really... just compare the two side by side some time and you'll see what I mean.
Refresh rate isn't an issue for the vast majority anymore. I can't see a bit of ghosting on my LG1710B; it has a 16ms response time, and that's more than enough for fast-paced gaming such as an FPS.
Dead pixels? There's something up with my DVI connection, causing basically the same effect. Occasionally a pixel in the middle lower-left turns cyan until I cycle the power on my PC. If I search it out, then stare at it, it can get kind of annoying, but otherwise at 1280x1024, it's unnoticable.
Other reasons I prefer LCDs are because I spend a LOT of hours writing code, and with a CRT, my eyes would become sore, and sometimes I'd get a headache after working for several hours straight. I eventually realized this was the refresh "flicker" that I didn't think affected me.
On a more minor note, it's nice not having a monitor that makes my room unbearably hot, ravenously eats desk space, throws off a strong magnetic pulse when powering up, and takes a half a minute to warm up and display a clear image.
Anyway, in the end, it's all about which you prefer, but those are some reasons I'm never going back to CRT. I can understand if someone prefers CRT for whatever reason, but that article was just funny in it's conviction that CRTs are clearly superior.
Has anyone else noticed what looks similar to color dithering on plasma displays? Every plasma I've seen (at Best Buy/Circuit City) has what looks like fixed noise. I've never understood whether its from the built in interpolation (1080i to 720p etc), an artifact of the display, or if its from the source (not likely). If you can see these artifacts, they change color with the scene, but they still don't quite match up. I don't believe they are source artifacts because they're so stable and they don't go away during fixed scenes.
Anyone else seen this or know what it is? A lot of people don't have the visual acuity to see it, but it grabs me right away.
....and Joel has something to say on that topic.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
I have owned a Zenith z32v37 for roughly one year. At the time, it was the cheapest HDTV I could with a built-in HDTV tuner. It displays full 1080i and 720p. The dvi port also works just fine as a display from my powerbook.
When you stare at a CRT, you're staring at the business end of a particle accelerator. Those things produce X-rays, they produce magnetic and RF interference. The glass used to make them is loaded with lead (to stop the X-rays), they're big, heavy, and energy inefficient. They flicker, and my personal experience indicates that this is very bad for (my) eyes, possibly they cause accumulated costs (cancer, lead poisoning, diminished eyesight, RF interference, energy consumption, pollution, etc...) to the users and society as a whole dramatically in excess of the price differential between them and LCDs.
Say what you will, but the fact that the picture quality is not better does not make it an "emotional" purchase.
This actually reminds me of what one hack once said about organically grown food. He said it was an emotional purchase, and people were wasting money because organic food hasn't been proven to be any healthier.
That may or may not be true, but organic food has been proven to be dramatically better for the environment, and probably much better for the farmers who grow it, and it is probably healthier too (fewer pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics). To write it off as an "emotional" decision is to ignore the vast majority of the (very valid) reasoning behind the decision by simply writing off anything that isn't an immediate instant-gratification style gain as "emotion". This was coming from an economist, and people wonder why poverty persists with people like that calling the shots....
You know, this could also have been proven with a simple walk through an electronics store.
eh? So you're saying all these chemicals are added between harvesting and distribution? Granted, some are in order to keep them fresh, but most chemicals come from either soil preparation or during growing. Just because it's a small town farmer doesn't mean it's organic. Chemicals have been used for generations by everyone who farms, regardless of size. Hell, 20 years ago virtually everyone with a backyard garden added chemicals, and even now many do. Chemicals are cheap and can make harvests more predictable, this is something you need no matter what your size, some might argue it's even more important for the little guy. Just cuz they're small doesn't make them organic.
The banding is *not* a fault of the Plasma/LCD screens, it's a quirk of the nature of pixel displays over the analog painting of phosphors the way the CRT does.
DCDI and other similar picture correction chipsets (which is in my DVD player and some TVs) will do a smoothing of the picture which helps that problem greatly.
I have been watching plasma prices for a couple years. My 'buy point' was $2000. Finally last week I found a Panasonic 37" plasma for $1999, so I bought it. Not HDTV (it downsamples HDTV signals to 480p), but HDTV is mostly hype anyway. I hate most television and I only want to watch DVDs. I mounted it on my wall, it looks sexy and I'm happy with my purchase.
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
What does a video display device have to do with vegetables? Organically grown food being better than non-organically grown food (which I believe to be true) has nothing at all to do with whether LCD displays are safer than CRT's (which I don't think anybody really knows yet).
As CRTs have been in common use for like 70 years, there has been enough time to identify and remediate the hazards that can be associated with CRTs. People are still learning what hazards are associated with LCD video displays. You mentioned lead in CRT glass; the cold cathode lights used in most LCD video displays contain mercury -- the lead in CRTs is dissolved in the glass, the mercury in cold cathode lights is released into the environment when the tube is broken. How much water and VOC's are used in the production of LCDs? What chemicals and gases are used when producing an LCD? What chemicals are present in LCD production wastewater?
It very well may be that the production, use, and disposal of LCDs is kinder to the world than CRTs; my point is that it is too early to know the total impact of LCDs.
I prefer to use an LCD display as a computer monitor, HOWEVER; for television viewing I prefer the appearance of a flat screen CRT. Televisions are viewed from several feet away, computer monitors are viewed from several inches away. Any hazards that there may be from radiation emitted by a television CRT are greatly reduced by the increased viewing distance.
I've been observing HDTV sets at various stores over and over, and truth be said, flat screen CRT based sets are way better. The factors are simple: Price, image quality, and price.
LCDs: Look good at a distance or closeup, but unless you want to spend over $1000 for one large enough for a home system, you can't get better than a 20".
Plasma: See above, except the closeup resolution, they look good, but usually run several times the price of a CRT and a few times the price of a good LCD.
Rear screen projection: While a little more modest in price, and large enough screen, they suffer the same effects as their old school CRT cousins, mainly poor focus, and pixel "bleed over", so you lose a good deal of detail (unless watched from a distance).
CRT: What you see is what you get, the resolution is very close to LCD (essentially these are just overglorified computer displays). They're cheap (compared to the prior three). The only true drawback is size/weight, and of course lacking the opportunity to show off to the neighbors.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
I'll raise the bullshit flag on some these comments...I have had regular old CRT TVs my life and never once, even after 10 years of regular use, have I noticed any burn-in on any of my sets.
That's as maybe, but the original complaint was:
Burn in (except for direct view)
Regular old CRT TVs are direct view.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
What resolution are you trying to output to it?
They just say CRTs are better, but they don't say why (no, just saying "better picture" doesn't amount to why) and by how much. No facts, no numbers. ;-) from a CRT manufacturer.
It could actually be a "sponsored" article
For large screens, CRTs are losing very clearly. Normal CRTs are downright impossible to use for the large screens typically required by HDTV. Projection CRTs are slightly better, but i think the long-term trend is to move away from projection.
Currently, if you wanna buy an HDTV set, you're probably looking at DLP or LCD (either projection or not; and, if projection, either front- or rear- will do). CRTs simply don't make sense for HDTV, and plasma are prone to burn-in.
OK, so it isn't exactly "flat", but at 16" of depth for a 61" TV, it's damn close.
Fed with the same HD signal, I have yet to see ANY tube TV beat out a good rear-projection DLP image.
My Samsung DLP is brighter than even SONY's WEGA line of HD tube TVs.
Another DLP bonus - no burn-in, no fade, no convergence or demag issues as well.
-ted
Geometry is always a problem
Same for color convergence
Same for focus
EHT stability is an issue
CRT computer monitors are often of quite good quality, even the not so expensive ones. But even the best CRT TVs of today have serious design flaws in the above categories.
CRTs kick ass over any flat-panel tech so far, except in the case where you need to haul them up two flights of stairs. and when they trip the breaker.
there are to two places where flat-panels kick butt. power and weight.
CRT kicks butt in price, availability
i personally can't tell the differance between the picture quality on a flat screen vs. CRT, either on HDTV or regular tv sets.
so, i'll take the CRT, and some ibprofin for when i need to move it.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
LCD and DLP technologies are quite comparable from an image quality p.o.v.
I've seen DLP retro-projectors which had better viewing angles than most CRT retros.
You should have spent the money you used on Monster brand cables for a decent video calabration disc.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
I'ld bet you'ld see a lot more people eating veggie burgers if they were say 3/4 the price of regular burgers rather than 2-3 times the price, myself included. They're probably healthier for you , but I really can't justify the cost difference to buy them.
You're quite probably right when stating that grandpa's organic foods were more expensive than today's organic foods. But then, great-grandpa probably was a farmer and grew/raised most of his own food. No out of pocket costs for him whatsoever, only labour.
optoma.com had a 65" rear-projection DLP that was on sale for Christmas for $3000 (yeap, that's 3k)
Very good viewing angle (not as good as CRT or plasma, but better than most rear-projection sets), all the connector types you can wish, good colors and resolution... Plus it's DLP so it's not prone to burn-in (unlike plasma or CRT which are very prone to that).
I wish i had the money. Oh, well, just wait a few more months, until the regular (non-on-sale) prices drop back to the '04 Christmas sale levels. Won't be long now.
Several years ago I heard of demonstation at CeBIT of a "laser projection TV". The concept is extraordinary simple. CRT (and projection CRTs) fire an electron beam at phosphor coated glass in a vacuum, creating a lit spot on the outside. The beam is deflected by magnetic coils outside the tube, creating a sizable image on the glass. I a "laser TV", three modulated laser beams (R,G,B) are combined together and fired directly at the viewing screen. Deflection can be done with a pair of spinning multi-faceted mirrors. Simple as that. No shadow mask, phosphors, or thick glass to get in the way of full brightness. The advantage would be a projection TV of any size, with a screen that is completely flat (or any other shape needed - say projecting ads onto spherical screens) that is always in focus, and without distortion from any viewing angle. Do such units exist? Specialist uses at mega-mega-buck prices? Why can't I purchase these at Best Buy for $399 and point it the living room wall or fridge door or the whole side of the house?
Plasma has (severe) issues with burn-in. LCD has issues with the black level. DLP is much like LCD, but it has perhaps a better black level.
:-)
CRTs can get out of focus, true (especially the multi-tube rear-projection), but when they're focused they're damn sharp. But like plasma, they are vulnerable to burn-in.
Overall, DLP looks like it's best now, with LCD a close second. Plasma looks damn good, but it's expensive, prone to burn-in, plus manufacturers are rumored to plan to move away from it (towards DLP and LCD). CRT is dead, it's just that it doesn't know it yet.
The original article is lame, uninformed and full of hyped crap.
How did the parent got modded Informative???
In the HDTV sets world:
DLP, LCD and plasma are typically 720p-native displays.
CRT are typically 1080i-native displays.
Typically, an HDTV set will only drive it's display at one resolution, it's "native" resolution (yes, even CRTs, yes i know it's weird) and convert everything else to it internally.
It sounds worse than it is actually, because nowadays the converters are getting pretty good.
Your grandfather may have been able to get organic produce, but he couldn't get fruits and vegetables out of season...lack of cheap refrigeration and cheap transport meant folks back in the day were very much at the mercy of the growing season, not like today with frozen foods and fresh produce from the souther hemisphere available in the winter here in the USA
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
But surely no one who is rich could be classified as "stupid"
(Sorry for the obvious comment, I guess you can say that I'm living proof that there are stupid people of average wealth too?)
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Thanks, that was very informative. What do you think about Dalsa's 4K Origin camera? I wrote an entry about it a week ago. Is there information in the industry about when Texas Instuments or JVC will release a 4K DLP? Will moviemaking really start switching over to digital at that point? I saw Episode 1 with DLP at the Sony Metreon and of course loved that there was no jitter or grain, but the resolution was a letdown.
Wow, this silly little comment elicited an amazing number of responses (though how we got on the subject of veggie burgers kind of confused me but they do seem to be popular). As usual moderation was NOT INSIGHTFUL - this was a JOKE. Well, it's more of an irony really, because there are a class of people with more money than brains (who my wife calls "stupid rich"), but I thought of the comment as "funny" not informative because if you haven't figured out that there are a lot of people with more money than brains you need a whole lot more clues than you're going to find on Slashdot.
To put it bluntly, if Sony doesn't make it, it's kind of a non-starter. There have always been high-resolution, high-dynamic-range cameras available, but they have had essentially no commercial use. They're used mainly by industry and government. This camera, no doubt, is in the same class.
Imagine, for example, if somebody came to you and said that there's a new still camera available, but it doesn't take any existing lenses, and that it outputs a data format that none of your software can work with via an interface that nobody supports. Interesting? Sure, as a proof-of-concept. But it wouldn't have any real commercial impact on the industry.
Feature filmmaking is moving to 1080/24p. That's going to be the standard. The 1.85:1 aperture format may hang around as slightly matted 1080/24p, or we may see a shift to HD's native 1.78:1 ratio. For widescreen productions, in the neighborhood of 2.35:1, we're either going to see matting like what Lucas used to shoot Star Wars Episode II, or the use of new anamorphic lenses that squeeze the picture slightly. While that technique has been used for years, it's been used to squeeze a 2.35:1 frame into a 1.33:1 35 mm frame. The same process will work with HD, but we have to grind new lenses to suit the different aspect ratio of the HD frame.
I've seen 4K projected in screening rooms plenty of times, in the form of a print made directly off of an effects negative. You know what? You can't see the difference between the practically-4K first-generation print and the fourth-generation print you see in the movie theater. By the time the picture makes it through the lens, through the air to the screen, off the reflective surface of the screen into your eyeballs, those extra pixels just don't count any more. You can push as much resolution through the projection booth as you want; it just doesn't matter.
What does matter, though, is dynamic range. More dynamic range is better, but dynamic range requires more storage. So the next big leap is going to be the development of either optical or magnetic media that are capable of holding an entire feature in a small space. "Small" is up for interpretation, of course, but the goal is to have a distribution medium that's cheaper to ship than film canisters. Right now we can ship a couple dozen 400 GB hard drives across the country, but they have to be so well packed that the end result is more expensive to ship than film. We need to fix that.
(Incidentally, Episode I was not shot digitally. It was shot on film, finished digitally, printed to film, then transferred back to the digital format for projection in a few theaters around the country. That means the digital transfer had just as much jitter and grain as the film prints. The only thing it didn't have were reel-change judders. Now, Episode II, on the other hand, was an all-digital production from lens to screen, if you were lucky enough to see it in a digital cinema. That was a hell of a thing.)
No, not exactly. The resolving power of the human eye varies with location. In the center of vision it's quite high, but toward the edges it gets less and less.
So you don't need quite as many pixels as you might think, but you do need some way of having an non uniform pixel density.
-Ariel
I'm pretty sure the Origin specifically does take existing lenses. Dunno about the data format. It's also claimed to have an additional f-stop of dynamic range over the Sony.
The Metreon digital theater was about the same size as their IMAX screen, which I saw Matrix Reloaded on. I sat a third of the way back. Every square pixel was extremely clear to me. On a 50 foot wide screen, maybe I wouldn't be able to tell anymore.
If you saw a 4K print, wouldn't the jitter blur the detail? Or was this on 70mm?
Do you have an opinion on whether 30p will always look like video? As opposed to the production values and cinematography that determine it? I despise the blur and loss of detail when 24p movies pan or action flies past. Heck, I'd be pleased if Maxivision48's system was used but still run at 24fps. Considering the head only costs $10,000 per screen, the system uses 25% less film, and the image has 30% more detail since there's not matted out analog track.
If the industry doesn't move past 2K, oh well. I'll just stop seeing movies in the theater and watch them with a blu-ray player outputting 1080 24p to my own 1080 projector. 10 movies times $10 = half the cost of a projector bulb. If they'd move on to 4K and thus 4 times the resolution of HDTV I'll still have a worthy technical reason to go to theaters.
Well where does the trend that one in five geeks will get glaucoma or cataracts from using CRT's?
Also I can feel the radiation from my CRT..
BTW, if you like gaming, its easier to tote a LCD.
Just say no to license servers!!
But CRTs will fill a LOT fewer landfills. They tend to last significantly longer. My current TV is a 27" Sony I picked up almost 15 years ago and it's still as beautiful today as it was the day I bought it.
I've noticed the color banding a LOT on satellite TV (Dish in this case), on all channels. Since I started noticing it, I now notice it all the time (this is on a Sony direct-view trinitron CRT TV), or else the problem has gotten worse. It's always there, throwing away huge amounts of the image, but it's only blatantly obvious in some scenes. (I suspect a side-by-side comparison would make it obvious in virtually ALL scenes.) So in this case, the signal is already bad so LCD probably wouldn't make it much worse.
Well the problem is that there isn't an LCD display available that can TRULY display a 60Hz TV signal without any motion blur being added. The problem here is that you are accepting the hype and marketing "specifications" that would lead most people to believe that they can really update that quickly. The reality is quite different.
On the other hand, most people seem highly tolerant of really horrible picture quality in all different ways (slow refresh or framerate, jitter, poor color quality, low resoltion, obvious compression artifacts, etc, which begs the question of why we are even attempting to move to "HD" resolutions, as half the people out there probably wouldn't even notice the difference from a typical viewing distance.)
I have tried every resolution I can think of in my conf file and cycle from 320xsomething up to 1280x1024 and the 16:9 ratio in-betweens. If you have a conf file or know someone who has one working on a widescreen digital I would love to see it. I think it is the viewable area that is wrong but I cant' seem to tweak that part correctly. I can only pan around in the middle.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
BS. My 20 inch LCD monitor displays 60 FPS computer games with no perceptible motion blur. TV is less demanding than that as discussed earlier. I'm sure there is a tiny smidgeon of blur left, perhaps measureable with high-speed cameras, but it is completely imperceptible to the human eye. I can't stand video artifacts in general, and I totally agree with you about the ability of the general public to tell a good video signal from shit. But there is nothing wrong with the motion display capabilities of today's LCDs.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
This is something interesting: when I first got my LCD computer monitor, the motion blur seemed terrible in games (such as QuakeWorld and Unreal Tournament). It was only occasionally really visible, but I think it messed up my performance at first.
But now that I am used to it, I don't notice the motion blur at all... It's funny what the eye can see or not see.
Sounds like your LCD is old. When I first got my new LCD, I tested it with Quake III and UT2004. I couldn't see motion blur at all, ever, and my performance was the same.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
If you figure that out, don't you also need a way to keep the human's eye(s) from focusing on the lower-resolution portions of the display instead of the area you've designed to accommodate high resolution?
(I've often wondered about that.)
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
... the open box deal, and the extra 10% off that day for open box items I paid $1350 plus tax for mine. :) This set has the same picture tube as the XBR range of sets, it has HDMI, cable card compatibility, and a built in dtv/qam tuner -- it just lacks DVI-D and PIP. I really couldn't go wrong. :)
-Joe
P.S. The only thing you'll definitely want to be aware of is a convergence issue in these sets. It can be remedied by a visit from a Sony tech, who will correct it for you, for free.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
LCDs have so many advantages over CRTs it's not even funny.
Please, please, please: mod parent up as 'Funny'.
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
Try using 1024x720, and what are you using for the interconnect? DVI? Component? Composite?
If analog, tell the TV you're giving it a 16x9 signal, and send it that resolution, and you should be good.
From a computer, 1024x720 will be 720p.