Hilarious post.
Insults and not one shred of anything that proves that your opinion is correct.
What is the big deal about asking you to backup your opinion.
I explained why I took the "LCD looks great" statement with a pinch of salt.
Its even clearer in the above post.
Please read the posts throughly.
If you decide my opinion makes it look as if I am calling you a liar,its your problem,not mine.
As for backing off,there's no need unless you have one spot of evidence to support your point----but as your posts continually show-you don't.
Last edited by mongosito : 01-09-2006 at 23:57

I've almost had enough of this!
If I understand correctly (and it's a Friday night after lots of beer) this is the conclusion:
Place the best CRT next to the best LCD and feed them both a superb SD picture, the CRT has the best picture quality. Not your crt, not your lcd, but the best we can find. I happen to agree with this statement.
What I don't like is the fact that I am unable to buy a 36" HD crt as I believe it will knock the socks off HD lcds and plasmas of the same size. I don't want a bigger set - my room is 4m x 4m. But I am forced to buy an lcd or plasma even though I know it won't be as good as a HD crt.
Last edited by webbie : 02-09-2006 at 01:02

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:

Thats exactly right.
Unfortunately,until HD is readily available its a choice of a nice slim sleek flat panel with below par SD pix,or superb SD on a CRT that needs scaffolding to hold it up

As I said in your other thread, CRTS are only better than LCDs in two respects:

1. Wider viewing angle
2. CRTs display an approximation of the image using RGB phosphors, which makes the image smoother (ie far less clarity than an LCD). This is desirable if you're viewing a low-resolution image.

And, as I said earlier, to add to this

3. LCD only displays optimal results at its native resolution. Any other resolution results in interpolation, which is one of the main reasons that digital artefacts are magnified (digital filtering). CRT has no native resolution as such.

But as we are talking about LCD displays of low res image (SD pix) then thanks for clarifying that I've been right all along

This has to be one of the most anorak, pointlessly argued threads I have ever seen.

It is widely accepted CRTs have a good picture quality mostly because it is now a very mature technology, just compare petrol cars with hydrogen based cars.

In the plasma vs. lcd debate each has its own benefits and drawbacks. similarly in the plasma/lcd vs crt debate, CRTs may have better picture quality but they are large and bulky and don't look particularly nice.

LCD is a good technology, look at its use within the flatscreen computer industry, very widespread because for most people it is at the very least adequater and often more than adequate. Only in very certain design-type situations do you find CRTs still in the computer industry and most of them have hoods on them, for colour accuracy I think they are used.

I personally have a plasma bought several years ago just before the rubbish cheap ones came onto the market and gave it a bad name. I find the colours are truly vibrant and beautiful for me it is better than LCD and when displaying images via component video they are extremely sharp.

Point being people will buy what they think is best for themselves, simple economics, who cares about anyone else.

Also isn't SED supposed to be the next best thing combining the benefits of CRT and LCD with the drawbacks of neither. (LCDs have loads of pixels each being a little cell, CRT has an electron-gun emitter, imagine each cell/pixel of the LCD being a tiny CRT, in a very dumbed down version that is SED).

Yes, I agree totally that LCDs/plasmas only display optimal results at their native resolution. HD therefore is fine as it uses the natve resolution.

A standard definition image will still look good though because the resolution is sufficiently larger to allow a good quality interpolation. As long as you have roughly twice the resolution (or more) of the source image, then you're losing very little definition when you scale the image.

Obviously, there are some shoddy low resolution LCDs/plasmas on the market, for example with 768 lines. If you watched a standard definition (576-line) picture on a 768-line LCD/plasma, it's going to look crap, because you can't scale 576 to 768 without losing a lot of definition. But if you scale a standard definition picture on an 1080-line LCD/plasma, it will look fine because you have almost twice the number of pixel rows as lines in the image, allowing for a good interpolation.

720 HD images are not a problem, either. A 720 HD image on a 1080 HD LCD/plasma will be very uniformly scaled (3 pixels of the screen for every 2 pixels of the image). So for every 2 pixels of the original image, you'll have 2 pixels that are wholly that colour, and one inbetween with an interpolated colour. This will look fine (which, I'm guessing is why the two values were chosen).

In summary, LCDs/plasmas are perfect at their native resolution, but still great at other resolutions, as long as the resolution is sufficiently lower than the native resolution (ideally half or lower). Or if the two resolutions are at an even ratio (ie 2:3, 3:4 etc).


No, no, no. The point I was making was "CRTs are good when you're looking at something low res and you want to smooth out the pixellation". When I said "low res", I was talking about something like an old arcade game (240 pixels high) which has extremely noticeable pixellation when you show it on a high definition screen. These games look much better on a CRT screen. (I know, because I'm into retro-gaming.)

For a standard definition TV picture though, pixellation is not an issue. A TV picture rarely has individual coloured pixels, like an old videogame. The pictures are photographic and pixellation is not an issue.

I've had a HD plasma for years and all I've ever watched on it are standard definition images, and they look great to me. I've never once felt that pixellation was a problem. On the contrary, I like to clearly see the pixels that make up the image when I look closely. Plus it is interpolated anyway, so you do get a certain amount of smoothing as part of the process.
Last edited by Grand Dizzy : 02-09-2006 at 23:42

Thanks for that clear explanation. So the message is to go for 1080 resolution and not less.

I have seen very variable LCD/Plasma picture quality in other people's houses and have felt that it was probably related to the flat panel rather than set-up or broadcast quality. Some have been excellent.

The LCD display on my laptop looks terrible if set to anything other than its maximum resolution, and indeed you get a warning to that effect if you do alter it. Are plasma displays affected to the same extent?

My TV is a 32 inch Toshiba CRT model 32ZD09B. When it came out 4 or 5 years ago it was said to have one of the best pictures available and it certainly is superb. I trust that when it eventually dies (currrently under 4 yrs old) quality and price of flat panels will have improved further.
I do suspect that many of those who see a great improvement in their new LCD TV compared with their previous CRT TV have been replacing a TV with suboptimal picture quality.

Edit/PS: I realise that altering resolution of an LCD display is not the same as the interpolation of pictures to 'fit' a display, but similar.
Last edited by Hector : 10-09-2006 at 10:43

Hello Hector, I've got the Toshiba 32ZD09B as well.

Great TV, great picture, great connectivity, great size!

Too good at present to contemplate ditching for anything else, especially with Dolby Digital processing on board with a full set of external speakers & subwoofer.
o
However, not wishing to tread on anyones toes, the price eqasion does not seem to work in CRT's favour. When new, this beast was £1,800 or thereabouts list price, retail about £1,300-£1,500, that was six years ago!

You'd be looking at £2,000+ these days for the same specification. The CRT's you can get are nowhere near as well specified as Toshiba so like for like price comparisons cannot be made.

Having said that, just picked up a Daewoo 28" CRT with Freeview on board for £215 as a second set, an impulse purchase which simply could not have been made with any other type. Good enough for purpose but not cuttingh edge.

Hi Zman,
Indeed, a good bit of kit, where the price did to a large extent reflect the technical specification, though no doubt upped to as much as they thought they could get away with. You're right that this TV came out about 6 years ago. It was then almost £1600 and after a year had dropped to around £1150, when I thought about it. I eventually bought mine as an 'impulse buy' in October 2002 (checked) when, looking for a freezer, I saw it as an ex-display model for £660 (including 2 yr guarantee that I negotiated). Was shown proof that they'd only had it for 4 months. Really pleased with it.

I've read quite often in the journals that SD on a native 1080 set looks terrible. I haven't personally seen it though.


You suspect wrong in my case - top of the range Sony CRT.

Hector , you (very) lucky man getting it at that price!

Having bought my set a little earlier when prices were firmer, I paid more than double your price & extended warranty was extra!

Still, a very good set at the time with top level spec. The abundance of connections has made setup very easy over the years with sat box, frevview PVR & video all with their own scarts & the DVD using component video input without resorting to scart splitters & the like.

Everyone on this forum is entitled to their opinions, but I cannot get anyone who honestly thinkd the picture on an LCD set is better/clearer than an old CRT box. I have bought an HD LCD (Sharp Aquos 32") set and completely agree with everyone that thinks the picture is rubbish. It only looks great from 20 feet, but hey, so do I, and Im fairly ugly.

Intresting point also about the HD stuff they play in the superstore. Its usually of a multicolour hot-air balloon. Not exactly high paced action!

I bought an LCD tv for a few reason. 1 :- I think they look better 2:- Its all the shops sell now 3:- my living room is bigger than 20 feet wide!

I knew the picture was gonna be duff when i bought it, but i dont sit too close to the set anyway. I think there must be lots of people on these forums who require their eyes testing! CRT rocks !

I thought this thread was dead and burried allmost as much as crts are lol.

ahh jeezz dont get this going again... look, everyone knows that yes on paper and in life CRT still gives the deepest most natural colour picture.. video producers, experts, reviews, mags have said this, but LCD is the current tec.. its still new... you look at how bad the CRT was when it first came out!!!!!!!... and it still want much better till the 60's and 70's... LCD has got miles to go.. but its much faster mileage today.. I'm happy with my LCD as long as movement is snail pace and i keep it on Planet Earth and not the footy.
LCD, no, 'flat panels' are the future now not CRT, they are cheaper, more environmental and give us the chance to cash out and buy HD Stuff !!! (because we need to don't we)


lets leave the topic alone now. Both tecs are equal!
Last edited by late8 : 06-11-2006 at 22:17

Laser TVs rule!