|
||||||||
I'd Rather Use a CRT TV For Standard Definition TV Viewing - What Are Your Thoughts? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,524
|
I'd Rather Use a CRT TV For Standard Definition TV Viewing - What Are Your Thoughts?
Is there anyone who shares my opinion that, for Standard Definition TV and video/DVD viewing etc, a CRT TV is, all things considered, better, overall, for picture quality than any LCD/Plasma screen etc?
Equally, I'd be interested to hear the opposite opinion, and why. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,537
|
No I completely disagree. CRT televisions are misshapen, round-curved glass-fronted light reflecting abortions. Plasma (and LCD) show a much sharper clearer picture for both standard definition and high definition images.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Any SD device is better than an HD one for showing SD programming - as there's no upscaling involved, and it's the upscaling that creates (and magnifies) the artifacts which are the problem.
Old SD only LCD and Plasma sets look pretty good on SD as well ![]() However, many HD sets are better as well - I've fitted many Sony LCD's and they commonly look far better than the CRT sets they are replacing. But in any case, CRT isn't an option now, and hasn't been for a few years - apart from secondhand of course, and that source is rapidly shrinking (as the sets go for scrap). |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The sane side of the pond
Posts: 1,499
|
Quote:
Is there anyone who shares my opinion that, for Standard Definition TV and video/DVD viewing etc, a CRT TV is, all things considered, better, overall, for picture quality than any LCD/Plasma screen etc?
Equally, I'd be interested to hear the opposite opinion, and why. If it helps you, I have a 37" Panasonic Viera, and SD programs look great as long as I sit at the correct distance and not 2 feet away from the screen! I have no regrets ditching my CRT, and I watch more SD than HD! For me, 6 feet viewing distance + 37” screen =
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Perfectly happy with SD on my TV, I know it's the viewing distance that compromises the quality not that it's a plasma.
Sit 15ft from a 42" LCD/plasma and you wouldn't be able to tell if it was SD/HD. CRT were too bulky and screen size was very limited. I wouldn't want to compromise my living space with the bulk of a small screen for what would be minimal improvement in PQ if any. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,524
|
Quote:
No I completely disagree. CRT televisions are misshapen, round-curved glass-fronted light reflecting abortions. Plasma (and LCD) show a much sharper clearer picture for both standard definition and high definition images.
Are you serious about your opinion that Plasma/LCD displays show a much sharper, clearer picture for SD pictures, than a good CRT? To me, they are pretty atrocious. OK, geometry is fantastic, not any CRT-related issues of focus, convergence, no non-linarity issues etc etc in sight, but the actual Standard Definition picture quality, as in clarity of the picture, appears quite poor to me (especially up fairly close), when compared to my CRTs. Whenever there is fairly dark material (I notice this on my Dad's LCD, when viewing 'Deal Or No Deal', for instance), there is terrible MPEG blocking in the shots of the audience, and also mosquito noise in places, both of which are extremely objectionable. None of these artefacts occur when I watch with my CRTs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
I completely agree with you about their odd shape, and anybody can see that LCD/Plasmas etc are technologies which look 21st century, but when it comes to overall picture quality, I think that CRT is easily better, and I am not in the least interested in how CRTs actually appear, if their overall picture quality is better. Please remember that I'm only talking about Standard Definition viewing.
Are you serious about your opinion that Plasma/LCD displays show a much sharper, clearer picture for SD pictures, than a good CRT? To me, they are pretty atrocious. OK, geometry is fantastic, not any CRT-related issues of focus, convergence, no non-linarity issues etc etc in sight, but the actual Standard Definition picture quality, as in clarity of the picture, appears quite poor to me (especially up fairly close), when compared to my CRTs. Whenever there is fairly dark material (I notice this on my Dad's LCD, when viewing 'Deal Or No Deal', for instance), there is terrible MPEG blocking in the shots of the audience, and also mosquito noise in places, this does not happen when I watch with my CRTs. But as others have said, it's mostly about viewing from the correct distance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,524
|
Quote:
Your CRT's blur the defects together (hiding them)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
CRT televisions are misshapen, round-curved glass-fronted light reflecting abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,524
|
Quote:
But in any case, CRT isn't an option now, and hasn't been for a few years - apart from secondhand of course, and that source is rapidly shrinking (as the sets go for scrap).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
Which is why I was delighted when I managed to find, and buy, a brand new/sealed Sony KV-21LS30U, which was being sold on eBay, a year ago, for a very reasonable price! - Modern looking, wonderfully flat and square Wega screen, and best of all, for Standard Definition viewing - A CRT!
You may regard the PQ as being better than today's LCD/Plasma sets, but your set will be seriously compromising widescreen material which makes up the vast majority of broadcasts. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The garden of earthly delights
Posts: 4,513
|
I use CRT mainly because I find the fine fizzing and jiggling of upscaled but heavily compressed Freeview channels not to my liking. Soft, but with random 'non picture' sharp objects.
My CRT (25") whilst still showing the compression blocks at least does not add its own blocks and noise so gives me an easy to watch picture. But then again my eyes are very sensitive to picture defects and I took back a Trinitron TV because the black line across the screen irritated me and yet no-one else ever noticed it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,572
|
This has been done to death on these forums...It's as bad as the Apple v Android arguments. Fanboys ( of either persuasion) rallying the troops for CRT or LCD/Plasma.
My newer TV's give a better picture than my Old ones....For me, that is the end of the argument. If someone is favouring an old CRT then that is their choice. It does though, seem to be an age thing and a determination not to change. Enjoy whatever technology you choose..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,524
|
Quote:
Another matter of opinion, it's a 21" 4x3.
You may regard the PQ as being better than today's LCD/Plasma sets, but your set will be seriously compromising widescreen material which makes up the vast majority of broadcasts. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,524
|
Quote:
But then again my eyes are very sensitive to picture defects and I took back a Trinitron TV because the black line across the screen irritated me and yet no-one else ever noticed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,537
|
Quote:
Are you serious about your opinion that Plasma/LCD displays show a much sharper, clearer picture for SD pictures, than a good CRT?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,221
|
I got rid of my CRT in late 2010 for an LCD and I find it a lot better than the CRT for SD viewing (I don't have HD channels and am not bothered about them much either). Its much easier to read the tickers on news channels. It also looks better in the living room than the old CRT which looked really outdated when I got rid of it.
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The garden of earthly delights
Posts: 4,513
|
Quote:
Are you talking about the extremely fine horizontal black line which appears about two-thirds of the way down the screen, when viewing very light picture content? I don't know if you know, but that's the fine wire which holds the aperture grille in place, common with all Trinitron tubes. I am also the type of person who pays attention to detail, but I have to say, it never really bothers me. It's barely noticeable, with most picture content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Northern Scottish Highlands
Posts: 11,307
|
Quote:
Is there anyone who shares my opinion that, for Standard Definition TV and video/DVD viewing etc, a CRT TV is, all things considered, better, overall, for picture quality than any LCD/Plasma screen etc?
Equally, I'd be interested to hear the opposite opinion, and why. I buy faulty lcd's, fix them and sell them so I have had a LOT of LCD set through my workshop, mostly the cheaper brands. (plus seen many many others that I install for people) Most of them have had a picture so poor I wouldn't want to keep it. But occasionally I find one that''s good enough to keep, and when I do it displaces the previous best one that I have been using. At the cheap end of the market, LCD's are a lottery some are good, many are rubbish. The only way to find a good one is buy a decent brand, or just keep trying cheap ones. I just could not go back to the imperfect geometry and imperfect colour purity of a CRT. Something that's worse on the flat screen CRT's (particularly the more recent ones) and there's no way I could go back to a curved screen with rounded edges for my main viewing. And did I mention reflections? My matt black LCD screen on a set with a matt black case, is so much better than a CRT that used to give me reflections from windows or lights in the room. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,524
|
Quote:
I would say, you just haven't tried the right LCD set yet.
I buy faulty lcd's, fix them and sell them so I have had a LOT of LCD set through my workshop, mostly the cheaper brands. (plus seen many many others that I install for people) Most of them have had a picture so poor I wouldn't want to keep it. But occasionally I find one that''s good enough to keep, and when I do it displaces the previous best one that I have been using. At the cheap end of the market, LCD's are a lottery some are good, many are rubbish. The only way to find a good one is buy a decent brand, or just keep trying cheap ones. I acknowledge that there are some very poor quality LCD/Plasma etc displays (particularly ones with the obscure brand names) and there are better ones, I just wouldn't want to swap any of them for any of my CRTs, for viewing Standard Definition material. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,391
|
I saw this thread title this morning, and knew it would be a popular one!
![]() The professional broadcast world is still struggling to replace CRTs as the reference standard. Some specific plasmas, LCDs and now OLEDs are coming close - but don't kid yourself they're anything like what's available to home users - in some cases they're $20k or even $50k+ for a smaller screen than any flat panel user on DS would put up with! Typical home CRTs, plasmas and LCDs all give their own "look" to the picture - and none of these "looks" is correct. The pro displays, including CRTs, have to work very hard to display a true picture. I suspect it's the CRT "look" (in as much as it's not accurate) that some people like. They'd like a pro broadcast CRT less, thinking the picture looked boring and flat. For a moving picture, the resolution of a CRT is still higher than that of a 50Hz HD LCD. On still pictures, the LCD will trounce the CRT. But that discrepancy between still and moving picture resolution on LCDs is one of the things I find annoying. Better LCDs and plasmas aren't so bad, but still visibly blur when the picture moves. There's very little of that with a CRT (though you get worse trails with white dots on a black background). For most other things, a great plasma or exceptional LCD can trounce a CRT. Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: S.West England.
Posts: 18,037
|
CRTs simply have a low res screen which sort of hides the imperfections in SD pictures.
As another poster said, CRT pictures, esp later Widescreen CRT's suffer from tilted images - easily seen if the image is "letter boxed". Some of the expensive sets had a correction function for this, but the rest didnt. And the CRT takes up the whole corner of the room, and is near impossible to move, uses loads more power, and gets red hot. I will stick with LCD thanks. As more and more HD comes on air, this wont be so much of an issue in the future anyways. |
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,524
|
Quote:
CRTs simply have a low res screen which sort of hides the imperfections in SD pictures.
As another poster said, CRT pictures, esp later Widescreen CRT's suffer from tilted images - easily seen if the image is "letter boxed". Some of the expensive sets had a correction function for this, but the rest didnt. And the CRT takes up the whole corner of the room, and is near impossible to move, uses loads more power, and gets red hot. As more and more HD comes on air, this wont be so much of an issue in the future anyways. Can you please explain what you mean when you say that CRT pictures suffer from tilted images. Like glass reflections of the CRT, the fact that they are bigger and harder to move etc is not really a big concern to me, overall picture quality is the first priority for me, when viewing Standard Definition material. All these other things come further down the list. I have a vast archive of Standard Definition material on S-VHS, VHS and DVD, and so it will always be a big issue for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 27,926
|
The MPEG artefacts are there even on a CRT. They are not manufactured by the display, they are present in the source signal. The display may or may not make those artefacts more visible.
With a Full HD panel very nearly 3 out of every 4 pixels you see on screen are "made up" by the TV when displaying an SD source. So there is plenty of scope in the upscaling process for the artefacts to be exaggerated. Add in a larger screen size and that just makes things more noticable. I wonder if there would be such a massive difference if you had a CRT and LCD of the same physical screen dimensions and pixel resolution side by side displaying the same image? Would the LCD show up the MPEG artefacts more than the CRT or would it be much the same? Trouble is I don't know of any LCD screens that would fit the bill so might be impossible to answer that question. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,524
|
Quote:
The MPEG artefacts are there even on a CRT. They are not manufactured by the display, they are present in the source signal. The display may or may not make those artefacts more visible.
With a Full HD panel very nearly 3 out of every 4 pixels you see on screen are "made up" by the TV when displaying an SD source. So there is plenty of scope in the upscaling process for the artefacts to be exaggerated. Add in a larger screen size and that just makes things more noticable. I wonder if there would be such a massive difference if you had a CRT and LCD of the same physical screen dimensions and pixel resolution side by side displaying the same image? Would the LCD show up the MPEG artefacts more than the CRT or would it be much the same? Trouble is I don't know of any LCD screens that would fit the bill so might be impossible to answer that question. I'm hopeful that LCD/Plasmas etc may improve, as time goes on, for displaying SD material, because, as has been pointed out, CRTs are now only obtainable via the second-hand market and, as time goes on, spare parts for these TVs will no longer be made. But, at this moment in time, I have two CRT TVs (one, of which, all spare parts are still available, including the tube - which I have a spare one of, anyway), so I am able to view my Standard Definition material in, what I consider to be, the best picture quality, overall. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:51.




