View Full Version : Direct View CRT HDTV's larger than 40"???
chris
01-07-2005, 01:00 AM
I'm not a techie per se, so I figured I'd post this question on here because I'm curious. I have a 30" Samsung Direct View CRT set which I love. Now I have friends who own LCD Rear Projections, Standard Rear Projection, DLP Rear Projections and even Plasmas. But after all of this, it appears to me that the best quality image you can get in HD is on a Direct View CRT HDTV set. Why is that? Also, why do they not make Direct View CRT HDTV sets larger than say 34"-40"?
They get very heavy and too expensive. When most people say that direct views have the best picture, it's usually because they are looking at a "smaller" picture, which only appears to look sharper.
As you know, as you magnify things (get a larger screen - it's like putting a magnifying glass to a newspaper) they don't look as sharp, even though you're looking at the same image.
Remember that flat panel LCDs and Plasmas are "direct view", they are simply not CRT-based.
They get very heavy and too expensive. When most people say that direct views have the best picture, it's usually because they are looking at a "smaller" picture, which only appears to look sharper.
As you know, as you magnify things (get a larger screen - it's like putting a magnifying glass to a newspaper) they don't look as sharp, even though you're looking at the same image.
Remember that flat panel LCDs and Plasmas are "direct view", they are simply not CRT-based.
Direct View CRTs have what looks to my eyes far superior grayscale and color accuracy than most of the projection sets I have seen. In fact its the opposite, Direct View CRTs have LOWER resolution than many larger screens.
They dont look as sharp but They look much better to me due the the better color accuracy and greyscale EVEN THOUGH they are not as sharp. Extreme Sharpness at the cost of the
other very important things like accurate colors and a long tonal scale is totally worthless IMHO. See my other thread I just posted on a $12K DLP projector I saw today. It looked awful compared to my $600 Sony in terms of color AND grayscale. VERY Sharp yes, but good color?, not even close. Unwatchable. JCO
I forgot to add that the reason the CRTs get so heavy as the screen size gets over 30" is that it is a VACUUM TUBE. That means there is a great pressure for it to implode into itself that gets greater and greater as the tube gets larger and larger. To counter this the tube needs to be made thicker and thicker and glass is HEAVY. So the bottom line is the weight just goes thru the roof by 40" and they become very impractical any bigger than that. I dont think it is really a cost issue, just a very impractical mass issue. Would you want a TV that weighed a 1000 lbs at any price? I wouldnt. there is also
the depth issue. they are bulky and the depth is proportional to the diagonal so they would become too thick at some point anyway even if the weight issue wasnt there.
JCO
Ratman
01-07-2005, 09:41 AM
Would you want a TV that weighed a 1000 lbs at any price? I wouldnt. there is also the depth issue. they are bulky and the depth is proportional to the diagonal so they would become too thick at some point anyway even if the weight issue wasnt there.
JCO
Just a bit off...
The RCA F38310 (38" widescreen) is 26" deep and weighs 216lbs.
The Sony 40XBR800 (40" fullscreen) is 26" deep and weighs 304lbs.
Just a bit off...
The RCA F38310 (38" widescreen) is 26" deep and weighs 216lbs.
The Sony 40XBR800 (40" fullscreen) is 26" deep and weighs 304lbs.
Just a bit off? Dont you know what a rhetorical question is? You just stated weight of CRTS only 38 and 40 inches. The poster is asking for LARGER crts. According to my rough calculations, a 60" CRT for example would weigh 1000 lbs and be 40" deep, both totally impractical. So your stating CRT weights for TVs hes not even asking about is what is "just a bit off"!
JCO
well, the flat CRT screens should be in by years end....search for that thread i'm too tired
Ratman
01-07-2005, 12:00 PM
Also, why do they not make Direct View CRT HDTV sets larger than say 34"-40"?
You just stated weight of CRTS only 38 and 40 inches. The poster is asking for LARGER crts.
Did I not answer what was asked?
Although I do agree that as the size of a CRT increases, so will the depth and weight.
So... using the weight of the 38" (216) and the 40" (306), one may/could "roughly" assume that the weight may increase ~50lbs. an inch.
But OTOH, lets just theoretically say that the size to weight ratio remains the same. Then, a 38" CRT at twice the size (76") would only be 432lbs.
Who knows? It's not worth getting into a deep discussion. Traditional CRT's will probably not get any larger than what's available today. RCA and Sony were the Guinea Pigs. They both stopped production.
(Not sure... but I also think Loewe stopped their 38" Aconda widescreen)
Huh? Sorry but you are overlooking basic geometry. When you double the size of a CRT tube diagonal you have FOUR times the area. That means all five tube panels (front and four side/ rear panels, * they are not really panels but one piece but the mass is roughly the same as if they were 5 panels) weigh FOUR TIMES as much and that is assuming the glass thickness stays the same but it doesnt so when you double the diagonal of a CRT tube you increase the weight of the tube by at least four times so your math is wrong. If a tube
was solid ( it aint!) the weight would be roughy 8 TIMES heavier when you double the diagonal. I dont know where you come up with 50/lbs per inch but it is all wrong, weight is based on 3 dimensions not one. And to propose that you could double the tube diagonal while only doubling the weight of the tube is a very flawed calculation to say the least. The fact that the mass increases so greatly as the screens get bigger than 35-40" is why they dont exist larger than that. Weight is just too impractical. JCO
Ratman
01-07-2005, 08:49 PM
Super... you're right. I'm wrong.
take it outside!
:drool11:
mikehbkwm
01-07-2005, 11:22 PM
JCO is always right :whistle:
Matt27
01-08-2005, 03:58 AM
I'd have to agree with soze,ratman, and mike... it's just too impractical to even think about building a tv set of those proportions. :boo2:
Right now, the future is flat panel displays, thin is in, bulky is out. :rofl2:
As soon as plasma technology improves and the prices get more to an affordable level then i'll purchase one when it's time.
Trust me man, i would rather have the weight of a 75-100lbs. flat panel display compared to a 600lbs. + crt set that is 38-40".
For now though i'm happy with my sony which already pushes weight limits of 193lbs. any heavier and it would be impractical and just too damn bulky.
I'd have to agree with soze,ratman, and mike... it's just too impractical to even think about building a tv set of those proportions. :boo2:
I do not understand this comment. I am the one who first stated that CRTs above 40" are too heavy and impractical and cost wasnt the problem. They were trying to argue otherwise. You are agreeing with me not them.
JCO
Super... you're right. I'm wrong.
Now you are correct! hehe
:patriot:
JCO
