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."

11 of 686 comments (clear)

  1. Expensive by adennis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. It seems nobody cared that the user interface becomes blurry and unreadable if you set screen resolution to anything other than integer fractions of the maximum resolutions supported by the flat screens. Unless you want to pay premium for killer video cards to go along with the flat screens, or watching a giant black border on the screen, your 3d gaming performance will go down because of this flat panel 'feature'. You definitely DON'T want ugly scaling on real time streategy games.

      2. As someone have mentioned before, you can pay twice as much money for the LCD screens of high resolution. The strange part is, the cut-off resolution for which flat screen becomes a luxury. Searching in price engine shows following:

      cheapest 1024x768 LCD: $~300 (KDS Radius RAD 5gs)
      cheapest 1280x1024 LCD: $~400 (Samsung 713V)
      cheapest 1600x1200 LCD: $~1000(!) (Viewsonic VP201b)
      cheapest 1920x1200 LCD: $~2750 (Samsung 243T)
      cheapest 1920x1440 CRT: $~300 (Samsung DynaFlat 997DF)

      Is the technology of eliminating dead pixel on LCD _that_ expensive? It looks like it, until I discovers when upgrading LCD screens on notebook, the price differential is much smaller when jumping between resolutions:

      Stock Dell Inspiron 9200 w/ 17 inch Ultra Sharp WXGA+ screen (1440x900): $2079
      Stock Dell Inspiron 9200 w/ 17 inch Ultra Sharp WUXGA screen (1920x1200): $2279

      The resolution difference is even bigger than Viewsonic VP201b vs Samsung 243T, and yet it costs only $200 more instead of $1750. Why the hell companies keep on overcharging on higher resolution screens?! If they want people to buy new technology, they should just make stand alone monitors with extra resolutions on smaller screens, instead of forcing consumers to buy 20/23/30-inch monitors just to get the same damn resolutions!

      3. Marketing practices aside, the competing flat panel technologies (LCD, [Organic|Polymer]LED, plasma, DLP) means that manufacturers can't concentrate on bringing down the cost of flat panels in general to the point of replacing existing CRT user base, especially for high-res models.

  2. Color Gamut by andreMA · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A good friend of mine works as a digital compositor in a Hollywood special effects house and swears that LCDs have a long way to go in color fidelity.

    The issue isn't resolution or viewing angle.

  3. Interesting article comparing display technologies by krumpet · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is an interesting set of articles over at Extremetech that compare CRT, LCD, Plasma and DLP display systems.

  4. Re:Doesn't add up... by aengblom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    are you telling me that "Regular Ol' TVs" are better than flat HDTVs?

    No, they are telling you that HDTV's made with CRT technology (The huge, heavy boxes) display a better picture than the thing plasma or LCD screens. The article is pointing out -- quite rightly -- that general consumers have associated "thin" with "high tech and good picture."

    In fact, if you have the space, you can buy a sizable CRT HDTV for a relatively affordable price. Not cheap, but something an average consumer could afford if they were willing to sacrifice a bit.

    On the other hand, I believe this trend has continued because people genuinely really do like the thin, lighter screens.

    Like it or not a television is one of the most dominant objects in a many peoplees homes. They don't want it big, bulky and ugly.

    One theory I read awhile back was that there has always been a significant number of wealthy men who wanted to go buy a big screen televeision, but were basically restrained by their wives who didn't want the huge ugly beheamouth in their living room. Sure, that flat screen costs twice as much, but now the wife says go for it because its not ugly.

    --


    So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
  5. Nonsense! by Ghostgate · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  6. Re:Doesn't add up... by SunFan · · Score: 5, Funny

    They don't want it big, bulky and ugly.

    Yeah, watching TV shouldn't remind them of their spouse!

    --
    -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  7. True story - I said "no" to a free plasma TV by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Interesting
    My wife actually won a plasma TV [MSRP $4499] thru some swipe-your-card at the grocery store deal.

    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.
  8. Get a projector by barc0001 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!"

  9. Re:People like my uncle by m_evanchik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    #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.

  10. Re:HD 101 by greg1104 · · Score: 5, Informative

    To read about the sort of things that are important to getting a good quality picture out of HDTV, I would recommend picking up any random issue of Widescreen Review magazine that features some CRT TV reviews to see what parameters they test on. The main thing that cheap sets (and any Plasma unit for that matter) really screw up are color linearity/accuracy and black level.

    I'm going to address CRTs as far as good brands go, because if you're not getting a CRT you're prioritizing something other than image quality under normal viewing conditions. As such the non-CRT recommendation process becomes very specific to your priorities and it's hard to give a good answer. I'm not trying to be snotty here, because I certainly understand that it's often the case that display quality is not even close to the main decision parameter. For example, the last TV box I bought was a small projector, which I knew perfectly well wasn't as good as a CRT. But I was living on a 5th floor walk-up apartment and not about to haul a good TV up there when I had a short-term lease.

    Anyway, Mitsubishi's high-end Diamond CRTs have the best factory calibration regime I'm aware of to make sure they are faithfully displaying their inputs, and their less expensive models are invariably at the top of the accuracy (and build quality) heap as well. Usually on the expensive side in get what you pay for fashion. At lower price ranges, Toshiba CRT sets usually give the best accuracy relative to their price. Some of the Sony sets look very good, but talk to any statistically significant number of people who have dealth with Sony repair centers and you'll never consider one of their products again.

    As always with TVs, displays in showrooms are totally bogus unless you are verifying color temperature and brightness/contrast/sharpness yourself across sets. Most showrooms sets are too bright and too blue, because those are the characteristics that make people prefer a TV at first glance in the same way that louder stereo equipment always seems better at first.