...

View Full Version : I have to dis-agree!



effpeetee
11-27-2008, 05:22 PM
In the UK, its similar with 'HD ready' TV. so few hd channels and there won't be any more until after the digital switch-over that a TV bought today will likely be changed before its HD feature can be properly used. and on the ordinary non-hd channels, the picture is woeful, compared with crt.

I have to disagree with this statement on another section of this forum.
I have just replaced my Sony CRT tv with a Panasonic 37" LCD screen.

It is MUCH better than the CRT. Absolutely no flicker. Superb linearity and colour rendering. Our existing DVD's are noticeably better and the two Blu ray dvd's are amazing. I have been in the TV repair trade for over 30 years until I retired, and I am amazed at the performance. It will also continue to give the existing analogue channels until they go. Also it is very much lighter in weight.
As I live on the second floor, that it quite a bonus too.

I am looking forward to the new high definition stations, but the gain in perfomance and enjoyment make the waiting hardly noticeable.

I know that there are tv's and tv's but all that we were shown were more than acceptable. Things are moving fast in this field. Indeed the day of the CRT has passed, like it or not.

Frank

bazz
11-28-2008, 01:08 AM
Indeed the day of the CRT has passed, like it or not.

lol.
I don't hanker after the past - far from it! ;)

I just resent the attempts of the market/manufacturers/retailers, who try to coerce people into buying a product where the marketing blurb is - shall we say - blatantly stretched.

HD ready means nothing to me because it is irrelevant because the channels aren't broadcast in HD yet. (a couple of exceptions, I know). But, by the time there are enough putting out HD, to mean that an HD TV provides value, I can buy a TV which will have presumably even better features than they do today and likely, they will be cheaper. It will likely be plasma too.

It's all a subjective issue anyway since one person might choose one thing and someone else may prefer another.

bazz

drhowarddrfine
11-28-2008, 01:30 AM
I have to disagree with this statement on another section of this forum.
I have just replaced my Sony CRT tv with a Panasonic 37" LCD screen.

It is MUCH better than the CRT.Well, no, but....
When people talk about how their picture looks better on a LCD, it's more about perception than reality.

"Colors are better!" They're not. The range of colors from black to white is a much narrower range than that available on any analog CRT. In fact, the overall contrast on the best LCD, last I looked, was only 3000:1 or so but good CRTs can be 10:000 to 1, from memory.

Your complaint of flickering has to do with the standard television scan rate and not CRTs. Just like your computer CRT monitor is nothing but a color television screen. The scan rate could be changed to reduce flicker easily if manufacturers would just do so.

This is a bit of the same comparison made between digital movies and film movies (I have 15 years in this business and still somewhat involved). Nowadays many exclaim the virtues of digital movie making because the colors are better, picture is sharper, no grain, etc., but again it is only in the perception and not the reality.

The same is true about the contrast/color ratios mentioned above but the illusions of "sharpness" is thrown in. Pictures on the movie screen might seem sharper but this is because each edge in a scene follows along the lines of a digital sensor. Another edge is reached in the projector. Just like in a computer monitor, there are red, green and blue sensors and elements but between each element there is...nothing. That picture information is lost while in film it is captured.

My cinematography friends will tell you they despise digital cameras due to the low quality image including something you may not notice but "bandaid flesh tones", flesh on the faces of the actors look the color of a bandaid.

In the effort to add to the spectacle, screens got bigger over the years but film size never did. The film industry, including the theaters, shot themselves in the foot by not increasing negative size from 35mm to 70mm from camera through projection and no way would anyone say digital was better than film had they done that.

What no company promoting digital cameras and projectors will ever do is allow you to view, side-by-side, two identical scenes shot in digital and film and displayed at the same time in the same theatre. The differences, and the advantage of film, is dramatic!

I'm not sure how coherent what I just wrote is. My sister-in-law introduced me to a wonderful new beverage which should put me to sleep shortly. :)

If I Were A Boy
11-28-2008, 04:47 AM
I have to disagree with this statement on another section of this forum.
I have just replaced my Sony CRT tv with a Panasonic 37" LCD screen.

It is MUCH better than the CRT. Absolutely no flicker. Superb linearity and colour rendering.

I think you will find if you had a top end CRT monitor in the first place there wouldn't have been any flicker. CRT > *, you just need to have a really good one and they don't make them like they used to. Our one is about 18 years old now yet has a picture quality better than most peoples cheap LCD monitors.

VIPStephan
11-28-2008, 10:44 AM
You know what? I don’t give a sh**. When I see people discuss about HD ready and flat screen TVs and HDMI connections and all their problems I’m thinking to myself: “WTF? As if there were no other or bigger problems in the world!”
I have a small – let me guess – 14 or 15" CRT TV and I’m still living happily. :)

effpeetee
11-28-2008, 01:43 PM
We spend a lot of time discussing css html php etc. Hardly world shaking either. Surely one learns from such discussion. I merely reported what I found. What one person considers trivial, may be of much concern to another. During the thirty or so years that I spent in TV repair and adjustment. One of the most difficult adjustments was to arrange for the three cathode ray beams to stay in step and to not be out of register. This was one of the most frequent complaints from our clients. Also impurity due to unwanted magnetic interference.

None of these are apparent on the digitally addressed LCD display. My 28 inch Sony Trinitron TV needed two very strong men to remove it. At 83 years old, I put the new LCD 37inch on the table by myself. I am hardly a Samson!

Yes,it is and probably always will be, Horses for courses. But one thing is sure. The CRT for TV has had it's day.

Frank

bazz
11-28-2008, 02:39 PM
lol funny you mention trinitron - it's a good example. My elderly aunt has had one of them for about 20 odd years and its picture is still excellent. (one time when she thought it was 'done' it was only because the plastic screen cover was dusty on the inside). Better than the digitals we have seen even if not much over 21". It may be heavy but that doesn't have any impact on watchability in fact, it hasn't been lifted from where it is since new so I dunno how heavy it is. (slid for dusting only).

Now that I have praised it, it'll probably pack up soon but it doesn't owe anything. :rolleyes:

The new lcd's are still less vfm imv and it was that issue - of things being brought to market befrore they were good enough that necessitated that point Frank quoted from the other thread.

The 50" panasonic plasma seems good enough to me but, only, if it has an HD feed and they aren't available widely enough yet to make it a relevant selling point for me. And I would tend to agree that with HD it is MUCH better than CRT

As you have likely guessed, I tend to take it easy and do my own thing. I evaluate stuff as best I can for my needs irrespective of budget and market trends.

In many cases the preferred item is, at first, over my budget so I must wait. In others, I get a better product for a lot less than the big brand or designer label cost.

In this case of televisions, I have to wait a bit longer; not just for a bit of growth in my budget but also, for a tv which makes use of the so-called features such as HD. it is an irrelevance currently.

Some might say that you should at least have the feature for when HD comes on stream but I think that is only viable for those who have to get a new TV now. Were I in that position, I think I would go for a used top end CRT to do me for three years until the 'new' TV's are up to scratch and when HD is actually here.


bazz

Jon_Boyd
12-07-2008, 05:32 PM
As someone who designed data displays in CRT days, one of the really under rated ideas is proper setup.

This is actually just as important with LCD and Plasma technology as it was with the CRT world. I don't know how people have their TV's and monitors adjusted at home, but it is common to see them poorly adjusted in the stores. (Probably to focus the consumer's attention on the higher mark-up brands that are well adjusted.)

borntoslow
12-15-2008, 09:20 AM
wow i cant believe people are still having this debate.

There are many many reasons that LCD has surpased CRT. Visit google and type in LCD v CRT for a few links :)

As for no real point as HD is not readily available...where do you live?? Nigeria. HD is been readily available for years and has many channels. Admit it is not being broadcast at full bandwidth...but with the correct software you can measure what is coming through and it is staggeringly higher than cave paintings...oops i mean analogue.

Frank, enjoy your TV mate and the new crispy pictures so real you want to touch. blue ray is amazing isnt it, i cant get enough of it. I am even buying films now.."oh i bet that will look good".

Same goes for Digital cameras against 35mm film. this was the case years ago, Digital photography has surpased film for sure. Not personal opinion, a branch of our company deals with industrial inspection using photography (of a sort) we swapped to digital a long time ago. Also worth noting here we made the swap from using CRT to LCD for viewing the results due to...well again many reasons.

For now i look forward to the rebuttles..

Post By
borntoSlow & My 48" Samsung LCD with shiney blue buttons...

ohgod
12-15-2008, 01:45 PM
well, perhaps a lot of it does come down to perception. but i NEED to think my shiny new tv is better to justify buying the stupid thing :D




and trinitron's really do last forever (and weigh as much as God)

drhowarddrfine
12-15-2008, 02:01 PM
As for no real point as HD is not readily available...where do you live?? Nigeria. HD is been readily available for years and has many channels.Some parts of the US are rural and remote and over-the-air signals can't reach them, nor is their cable but satellite is available.


Same goes for Digital cameras against 35mm film. this was the case years ago, Digital photography has surpased film for sure.Absolutely false.
Not personal opinion, a branch of our company deals with industrial inspection using photography (of a sort) we swapped to digital a long time ago.But a highly uninformed opinion. I've worked with Kodak. I've worked on Hollywood films and the cinematographers. I've seen the tests. The opinion of your company is a typically amateur one. Film spits in digital's face.

Also worth noting here we made the swap from using CRT to LCD for viewing the results due to...well again many reasons.And Hollywood films are still shot on film for many reasons.

You are right, this is an old topic that we discussed on the professional film boards years ago. If you want high resolution, brilliant colors with excellent contrast and long term archival abilities, use film and beat digital in all formats at all times. Hands down, film is the winner.

If you don't need the excellent presentational qualities of film, such as television broadcasts or the low quality of the web, sure, use LCD. It's cheaper and lighter.

Apostropartheid
12-15-2008, 04:53 PM
I've always assumed that, due to the very nature of analogue signals versus digtal ones, that analogue would present clearer, better results. It's been a long time since my Physics days, though. Either way, I'll always be a sucker for 35mm film, and I'd still use them if the things weren't liable to run out and could fit in my pocket.


If you don't need the excellent presentational qualities of film, such as television broadcasts or the low quality of the web, sure, use LCD. It's cheaper and lighter.

Didn't you just switch topics halfway through that?

drhowarddrfine
12-15-2008, 10:30 PM
I've always assumed that, due to the very nature of analogue signals versus digtal ones, that analogue would present clearer, better results. It's been a long time since my Physics days, though.You are exactly right.


Didn't you just switch topics halfway through that?
I just discuss things very efficiently.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum