The vast majority of TVs sold are HD, then comes CRT and then comes 3D.

SD is better viewed on an LCD than a CRT set, maybe youve just seen TVs with a cheap scaler.

Ah plasma, another obsolete technology, I bet you have a minidisc, laserdisc and betamax too somewhere.

You remember the horrible red/blue glasses and it being awful. In 10 years youll be saying the same thing about the current glasses and TV sets. Theres no difference, both are a fad and a waste of money.

Nope.

No - CRTs do much better at hiding compression artefacts than LCDs do.

Yep.

They only hide it because the overall picture quality is so bad.

A quality HDTV with a quality scaler beats CRT every time.

This is one of the many reasons why 3D was being discounted at NAB in Las Vegas last Month -
( ideally need say 1920P60 times two .... )
the others were around the mechanical difficulties of actually shooting - and the eye ache - when 2D provide most of the visual cues ...
Also 3D only works well for limited subgenres and requires a very different style - no fast cutting etc ..

A top of the range CRT is as good as any TFT LCD/LED screen SD or HD..

Given that most images are now decoded using digital equipment - you can get artifacting on any TV set.. but an old analogue broadcast on a top of the range CRT is as good as any picture ona HDTV set being sold - and it's a very misleading and unfair marketing trick to say that HD offers superior quality when in fact the average human eye can't distinguish the finer details in most TV transmissions on whatever modern TV set is used..

Regarding Wimbledon HD and the BBC.. yes the BBC did start filiming in HD many many years ago - when Tomorrow's World was still on air, however, it was recording it in 1250 lines resolution.. which is proper PAL High Definition.. not the crappy american 1080 NTSC which everyone has adopted.. why we didn't all take the manufacturers to task and complain to the ASA, about the HD not being true HD for PAL systems I don't know.. we've all been duped by 170 lines of detail.. we should all fight for proper HD in Britain..

It still produces the best picture quality which is why Pioneer use it in their £2,000 panels which are amongst the finest around.

I never owned a large screen crt that did not have major geometry issues.

Its not worth responding to anything when people think CRTs are as good as HD.

Thats like saying VCRs are as good as PVRs.

You have obviously never seen a broadcast quality CRT monitor.

Not everyone is willing or able to purchase a TV costing that much!

In My opinion TV is not important enough to spend £2,000 on a new set, and those who are willing to spend so much on a TV have more money than sense.

Or are just considerably richer than youuuuu

My plasma cost a mere £700. I know my place.

Yes but rather pricey at around $2400 for a 17" HD CRT monitor nowadays

No you have not been - 1080 covers the active picture - which is actually on the same basis as 1250 lines has 1125 lines per frame when you add in VANC (see Annex F SMPTE 272)
(this like SD being "625" =576 or "525" =480)
so we are not being that short changed - and the world wide standard for broadcasters kit makes it cheaper

Well, perhaps it is naivety, but the case with HD is a bit different from the move to SD digital. Yes, there was talk then about improved picture quality but there were two other significant advantages--widescreen (which is why I got Sky on day 1) and more channels. With HD, there is only one advantage which is of course better PQ. A look at recent EBU documentation is interesting in that it is very conscious that this is the case, and emphasises the need to achieve as good a PQ as reasonably possible. This includes doing critical viewing at 3H, sets a pretty high benchmark for acceptable picture impairments etc. And as they also emphasise, with domestic screen sizes increasing, expectations over quality are also rising. I think this makes HD PQ perhaps a trickier subject to handle than you suggest.

We may well end up with the PQ you levels you indicate, but for PSB institutions who are (for now?) essentially wedded to bandwidth limited DTT, the battle is against those limitations rather than the desire to get away with what they can because the latter is not in their own interest. If you believe their own publications, anyway--or is that me being naive again?

Its not really relevant where were talking about home use with and SD CRT.

Trouble is, people compare their old small CRT to a HD TV which is much larger and think the LCD is poorer which isnt true.

Bigger TVs are poorer for SD pictures or any picture for that matter, its simple science.

40" CRTs had a terrible picture.

Funny, I'm sitting here reading this on a PC with a CRT monitor running at 1920x1440@60Hz which I think cost me all of £350 several years ago. You can get much better these days but I'm not planning on 'upgrading' it until some other tech surpasses it in quality or it fails.
CRT is by far the best for colour reproduction, contrast, and resolution.
But LCD/PDP is certainly the best for the living room, flatter, more compact and designed for longer viewing distances but overall picture quality is a long way off what CRT can achieve.

1) from BluRay, it's not lower resolution, it's exactly the same resolution (1920x1080).
2) for whatever reason, 3D looks subjectively clearly and sharper than 2D (all other things being equal) - which means half-res side-by-side 3D doesn't usually look appreciably softer than full res 2D.

I don't know why, but it must be something to do with the way the human brain decodes what our eyes receive. What ever the reason, it's a pretty common subjective impression - you only need an active 3DTV and a BluRay disc to verify it. The 3DTV will happily present "one eye" of the 3D BluRay to give entirely equivalent quality 2D. The only way it's not a fair test is that the shutter glasses may impact your perception of clarity.

Cheers,
David.

...but most CRTs are far smaller than most HD sets, so the resolution (pixels per inch) is similar.

Then there are these advantages:
1) The roughly Gaussian shaped electron beam spot is a half-decent anti-alias filter
2) no deinterlacing is necessary
3) the flashing image (assuming it doesn't annoy you) is about the best possible motion portrayal from a 50Hz source
4) the native gamma and colour of the display match those of the broadcasts
5) black level and contrast ratio are sufficient at the "pixel" level, without trick or adaptation etc.

1 + 4 can be simulated (very well now on top LCDs), 5 is getting better all the time, but 2 and 3 require LCDs to make information up. That's where they fail.

Of course CRTs routinely fail on geometry, screen size, hernia induced by lifting one, availability, HD capability, etc.

Cheers,
David.

Absolutely - try telling that to the LCD fanboys Don't get me wrong LCD's are great technology, but the bigger the screen the better plasmas handle artefacts and motion. LCD's don't match up.

Now if I used that at 60hz Id get and instant headache, Id refuse to use any CRT under 75hz.

It might not affect you but thats another reason why I cant stand them.

Actually LCD is mainstream and plasma is the group with a tiny minority of fanbois screaming its better.

The difference in running costs far outweighs any perceived different for most people.