View Full Version : Death of CRT's
vaxick
09-19-2005, 04:51 PM
Do you see a end to CRT's coming soon?
Sony, known for building one of the best direct view sets out there is rumored to be killing off it's CRT line to focus only on LCD's. Many others are cutting back on their CRT lines and outsourcing seems to have become a popular trend.
Even on the PC side of things, CRT monitor lines are being cut back as there is a great push towards LCD monitors. It's funny to see how well a 60 year old technology has held up all these years, but it's a shame to see them go. Sure, their issues such as geometry are a thing of the past with other displays, but CRT's still do some things better.
CRT's are well known for their black levels, high motion, and color accuracy. The biggest issue with them being their weight and size. Something that is not a issue for displays such as LCD's. Thus, LCD's are trying to be pushed as the displays that should be in all households.
Yet the obvious benefits, LCD's still have a lot of work before they can catch up to CRT technology. They have always had major issues with black levels and it's still a major problem with them after all the years they have been around. LCD's still have serious issues with motion and even the worlds fastest LCD developed by ViewSonic that runs at 4ms still has ghosting. Not to mention the color accuracy issues.
It's a shame to see CRT's being pushed into the background and being viewed as a obsolete technology when despite all the modern advances, CRT's still display a impressive image.
mjones73
09-19-2005, 04:58 PM
Shame they are killing them off though, the stores want to push the more expensive smaller units out now, they can fit a lot more variety on the shelves with the new technologies coming out...
Ratman
09-19-2005, 05:06 PM
IMO... that they are not 'obsolete'. It's just that the manufacturing costs, weight and the 'wow' (slim design) factors appeal to the masses without regard to picture quality.
It's a 'trade-off' that the majority is willing to accept at a higher cost to the consumer, more profit to the manufacturer.
Shame...
The other issue with CRTs is environmental. Due to their weight and manufacture, they contain a lot of "baddies" (heavy metals, etc) that governments are beginning to threaten recycling, disposal charges, etc. (A good thing).
Ratman
09-19-2005, 05:44 PM
That's a good point... but the CRT is not a primary environmental factor/contributor for the demise.
Electronics in the TV alone contribute to that no matter the display.
To add... how many people still throw batteries into the 'regular' trash? (heavy metal factor)
I agree it's a factor, but there are bigger contributors to pollution than the CRT alone.
CRT still give the best pic hands down....but everyone's moving to the cool flat screens.....
CRTs will die a slow death....
madmatt
09-19-2005, 06:17 PM
CRT still give the best pic hands down....but everyone's moving to the cool flat screens.....
CRTs will die a slow death....
good... no one should pay money for an obsolete paper weight.
vaxick
09-19-2005, 06:53 PM
good... no one should pay money for an obsolete paper weight.
So what makes your LCD TV better than my "obsolete paper weight" of a TV? The "paper weight" has better color, more accurate color representation, better blacks, and has no issues at all with high motion. There is not a single LCD out there that can even touch CRT technology yet. I'll gladly stand by my "obsolete paper weight" :rockon:
Ratman
09-19-2005, 07:23 PM
My 216 lb. 38" widescreen CRT paperweight looks very nice.
All I need now is a real big fireplace to hold it.
mjones73
09-19-2005, 07:38 PM
good... no one should pay money for an obsolete paper weight.
When the newer displays can beat the black levels and over all color representation a CRT can display, I'd make that statement... They have a long way to go til that happens though.
vaxick
09-19-2005, 09:19 PM
My 216 lb. 38" widescreen CRT paperweight looks very nice.
Haha yes! :rofl2:
ruadmaa
09-19-2005, 10:22 PM
When the newer displays can beat the black levels and over all color representation a CRT can display, I'd make that statement... They have a long way to go til that happens though.
Strange, I was all but told that my Hitachi 65S700 CRT tv was nothing short of junk compared to the new LCD tvs and that crt resolution was lousy. The thread was regarding the new blu-ray technology.
See below excerpt by jco:
The 1080(p) fixed pixel display technologies are sharper than any of the CRT HD technologies including rear projection CRT sets. CRTS are good for one thing, the best possible contrast ratio ( I know, thats why I bought one recently), but they do not produce full true 1080i resolution, thats not even possible because the signal is 1080i resolution and the only way to achieve it is with fixed pixels. CRTS have limitations that make the actual resolution less than the signal resolution like dot bloom, geometry errors, convergence errors, focus errors, bandwidth limitations, etc,etc. YOU are sadly mistaken if you think you are actually getting true 1080 by 1920 displayed resolution. your not. AND that is exactly why you think DVD is so good and "almost" HD quality. Its because your DVD PQ is full DVD but your HD PQ is NOT full HD PQ. If it was you wouldnt be so enthusiastic about saying HD-DVD isnt needed because DVD is so similar. Its only so similar on your set with the shows you saw with the transfers you saw. If you had a better HDTV ( believe it or not something better exists) and the best transfers the difference between DVD and HD would become more apparent.
No one seemed to defend crts when this diatribe was being hurled at me. According to the above excerpt, my crt tv isn't even capable of true HD. It was rather insulting.
spottedfool
09-19-2005, 10:54 PM
My 216 lb. 38" widescreen CRT paperweight looks very nice
As does my 225 lb 55" widescreen :D
mjones73
09-19-2005, 10:58 PM
I'm not sure why you need a fixed pixel display for true 1080i resolution when fixed pixel displays can't display interlaced material, only progressive... It is true most CRT's don't display a full 1920 lines of horizontal resolution though.
Matt27
09-19-2005, 11:19 PM
CRT's are the deffinitive referance for HD quality video,i think we can all agree there.
Untill the day passes that a technology passes CRT PQ,then i'll make the upgrade,but for now it's not really worth it for paying for an inferior PQ.
CRT is still the best,and will remain that way untill a technology surpasses it in "ALL" aspects.
Strange, I was all but told that my Hitachi 65S700 CRT tv was nothing short of junk compared to the new LCD tvs and that crt resolution was lousy. The thread was regarding the new blu-ray technology.
See below excerpt by jco:
The 1080(p) fixed pixel display technologies are sharper than any of the CRT HD technologies including rear projection CRT sets. CRTS are good for one thing, the best possible contrast ratio ( I know, thats why I bought one recently), but they do not produce full true 1080i resolution, thats not even possible because the signal is 1080i resolution and the only way to achieve it is with fixed pixels. CRTS have limitations that make the actual resolution less than the signal resolution like dot bloom, geometry errors, convergence errors, focus errors, bandwidth limitations, etc,etc. YOU are sadly mistaken if you think you are actually getting true 1080 by 1920 displayed resolution. your not. AND that is exactly why you think DVD is so good and "almost" HD quality. Its because your DVD PQ is full DVD but your HD PQ is NOT full HD PQ. If it was you wouldnt be so enthusiastic about saying HD-DVD isnt needed because DVD is so similar. Its only so similar on your set with the shows you saw with the transfers you saw. If you had a better HDTV ( believe it or not something better exists) and the best transfers the difference between DVD and HD would become more apparent.
No one seemed to defend crts when this diatribe was being hurled at me. According to the above excerpt, my crt tv isn't even capable of true HD. It was rather insulting.
YOU were insulted? Why? I spoke the truth about CRTS only with regards to resolution and I specifically stated that I bought one so how could you be taking that as in insult? I was criticizing CRT resolution, not you.
I cant believe that after all this time people dont just post the obvious pros and cons of CRTs vs LCDs and other fixed pixel technologies. Its pretty simple.
CRTS have the widest range of displayed constrast ratio by far of all the current display technologies. I do not know if color accuracy is also an edge with CRTS anymore but its also outstanding so I would imagine at least visibly
equal the other technologies.. Thats about it for its advantages, its disadvantages are poor resolution and geometry compared to fixed pixels and of course extremely bulky and heavy in large direct view models.
In my opinion CRTS are the definate winners in the 30-36 direct view size
because they have the inherent outstanding contrast ratio and their lack
of resolution is minimized in this range compared to smaller sets... IN other
words, the contrast ratio increase is far more satisfying and noticeble
than the loss of contrast and perfect geometery is distracting..
I am still a CRT fan indeed. But I dont kid myself into pretending its just
as sharp as these LCDs are now with 720P and will be with 1080P. They arent
but damn the picture really comes to life when those few specular highlights
you see in every scene are blazing away while the other technologies they
are squashed down to a boring "medium white". I also notice slight distortion at times which I dont like either, but to be honest, I would much rather have the CRT strengths and its slight weaknesses than the LCD strengths and major weaknesses....
that said if you are a real stickler for absolute maximum sharpness and are using a really big screen, then LCD just may have the edge because some
of the benefits of CRTS are lost with projection systems compared to direct view.....
vaxick
09-20-2005, 04:28 AM
I do not know if color accuracy is also an edge with CRTS anymore but its also outstanding so I would imagine at least visibly
equal the other technologies..
The 8-bit and 6-bit LCD panels do not have the colors of a CRT yet.
MJM3000
09-26-2005, 05:48 AM
How about that TI commerical, where everyone is throwing their CRT's out into a neighborhood trash pile. I'm sure that annoyed some people, pleased others, and simply had no bearing on those who are indifferent to the whole HDTV world. That was quite a PSA though, huh?
I believe the flat panel technologies are very promising, including some that aren't even in the public domain yet. However, I'm still pleased with the direct view CRT's. In fact, I'm weeks away from my next tv purchase, and it's going to be a Sony 34" tube.
as a CRT owner I'll buy a Flat screen in a sec when the prices come just a lil down...but it still pains to know that the pic quality is gonna be less than my trustworthy CRT...
matwhitt61
10-03-2005, 09:59 PM
A CRT will give you a very good picture regardless of what is the best on market with 1080p. People are too picky. If you have a CRT that does HD, don't worry about going out and buying a new Flat panel display unless you just feel like spending tond of money.
Pherball66
10-04-2005, 10:34 PM
I agree, Plus you can get a CRT for alot less money. I just got my first RP CRT HDTV and love the colors, blacks and resolution. It has handles and wheels so the size doesnt matter.
