[Paul Cooksley]

Well, I have a trusty Sony 32" CRT widescreen set, that I bought just over 2 and a half years ago.

Recently, within the past few weeks, I've been getting itchy feet and wanted to look into getting a bigger, 40" screen - so obviously, these days it's really either LCD or Plasma of course..

Now, because I usually have Sony equipment and have been very happy with it, I have been looking at quite a few Sony LCD's (40" versions).

Now, here's my point: Looking at the freeview pictures (which is what I would be watching alot of) on these (some high end sets too), I am simply appalled at the quality! Ok, I know these LCD's/Plasma's tend to look the business on HD, but I have no plans to get Sky HD and therefore won't be getting HD on tv broadcasts until it comes to Freeview - so I won't be holding my breath!

So, as per the title of this thread: Am I alone in thinking that my trusty old 32" Sony CRT's picture is knocking the socks off most of the current Plasma's an LCD's? I know, people will say that CRT's are not as clear, hence hiding some of Freeview's imperfections, but generally, I think my CRT is absolutely fantastic compared with some very expensive LCD's.... Ok, so there are some very slight geometric issues towards the very edge of the picture (noticeable only really on straight lines) but there again, I think most CRT's suffer this slightly to some degree....

Do others share this opinion? I think I am gonna stick with my CRT for as long as poss !!!!

[Matt_C]

I am with you, and is one of the reasons I got my 36" Tosh CRT.... That and the fact that for the money, you can't beat it! (at the time, £700 or more for a "known" 37" LCD - £250 for my 36" Tosh CRT)

[lovecats]

trust me, you are not alone !

it IS a major problem, just like lcd pc monitors, grid based displays only look good with 1:1 pixel mapping.

CRTs look good with any res, as they are analogue and can rescale to any res ( within reason ) without suffering from digital artefacts. ( it is not that crts hide sd lower quality, but that hd panels have to dilute the quality to fit the hd panel, thus adding lots of noise )

have u considered a lcd projector and pull down screen for home cinema ?

cheap nowadays, and much better quality image than dvd on flat tvs ( projector lcd chip is tiny, and can react much faster than 42" panel etc )

[Sonic67]

The Freeview image is a fixed (low) resolution. Bear in mind that taking an image on 32" and blowing it up to 40" or more will look worse regardless of the technology of the TV. Imagine taking a photo at 800 x 600 then blowing it up larger and larger.

A fair comparison will be to compare a Freeview image on a CRT at 32" with a Freeview image on a 32" LCD (plasmas tend not to appear below around 40".)

If you have a larger and larger TV then having a HD image as the source becomes more important but you say you are not interested in this.

As you say CRT's have other flaws too. Displaying vertical lines on a widescreen CRT is a problem but not for LCD or plasma.

[aekostas]

A few comments on Sonic67's post:

- Freeview resolution is not fixed, it varies by channel. Watching MOTD on Sunday morning I also wonder if it varies inside a broadcast as well; in the Derby match I could see noticeable pixelation compared to other matches inside the same MOTD broadcast.

- A 32" LCD will actually display a bit more than a 32" CRT, but your comment is correct.

Back to the OP: apologies if preaching to the choir, but can I check that you did not judge a display from a distance that's significantly closer than your normal viewing. But I agree with you, since I mostly watch freeview and occasionally DVDs, I don't touch flat screens with a bargepole.

[Geoffw]

I agree. I will not be getting a plasma or lcd. HD , to me, is still below par for crt's. Look at the grass on a LCD and its like looking at astro turf
There, i have said what I think and I am sure there are a lot of people who will disagree.

[lovecats]

FYI Freeview image IS fixed resolution.

However, the quality of the image varies, due to the compression used.

you can have 2 images , both 800x600, but one can have 90% compression and look terrible, and the other 0% comp. and look great...... but the resolution is always the same.......... compressed images are smaller, as less data per same actual resolution......

u can compare a 32" CRT to a 32" LCD, or a 36" CRT to a 37" Plasma, on both cases, with SD AND HD ( downscaled to SD ) the CRT will always give a better image.

TRUE HD ( Bluray / HD dvd ) offers a far better image, than Sky HD, as sky compresses its HD images.....yes, they are HD in resolution, but lower quality ones, due to compression.... a bit of a con really, as Sky HD is MUCH LOWER quality than UPSAMPLED DVD for example.........

and when it comes to moving images, CRT wins hands down, the refresh rates of lcd / plasma pixels are no match for the speed of the electron gun....and then there is the blank interleaving of CRTs which is not used on flat panels, again, CRT looks fluid, whilst flat panels look processed and unnatural....

[Stephen Neal]

Originally Posted by lovecats

FYI Freeview image IS fixed resolution.

Except that as broadcast - it isn't.

Freeview broadcasts at 720x576, 704x576 and 544x576...

BBC One, Two, News 24, Thee/CBBC and Four/CBeebies, ITV1 and C4 are broadcast at full resoluton on Freeview.

BBCi video streams, BBC Parliament, and most of the ITV2-4 and E4/More4 channels are broadcast at 544x576 - as are most ITV and C4 satellite broadcasts as well.

[lovecats]

Originally Posted by Stephen Neal

Except that as broadcast - it isn't.
Freeview broadcasts at 720x576, 704x576 and 544x576...
.

Well thats just plain silly I think........

Why mess about with different resolutions as well as different compression rates ?

Out of interest, what is actually the output resolution from 3view boxes ? no doubt they will upscale any lower resolutions to native output spec ?

[Jonstone]

Its always a trade off between one quality or another.

If you could get a crt with an actual 40" diagonal the general picture quality may be better but the downsides (size, weight, geometry etc) would be unacceptable to most people.

So for larger sizes you have little choice but to go for lcd or plasma, and for smaller sizes then I would agree that crt is better.

I have an sd plasma and an hd projector, both of which give me results that I am very happy with

[lovecats]

Originally Posted by Jonstone

I have an sd plasma and an hd projector, both of which give me results that I am very happy with

I have a 25" CRT Tv, and a 8" Crt Projector.......

however, if I had to go the digital route, I would also go with SD Plasma, HD projector, a spot on combination........

[DougieB]

Hi All

I have just recently migrated from CRT (JVC 28" w/component input, 3 scarts and Svideo) to a Samsung LE32R41BD previously the property of my youngest son (upgraded to LE40M878BD) and am extremely well pleased.
The panel has made DVD viewing a vastly improved experience via HDMI as against Component on the JVC also I have NTL/Virgin Med STB and the picture
has also improved via scart (RGB) as against the same on the JVC. I find the images sharper and the colours more vivid than the JVC CRT and my JVC was
at the top of the JVC Range whic included their 36" set. Apart from the 36" Picture Frame Tosh my elder son has I have yet to see a CRT that surpasses
this Samsung LCD and in my opinion LCDs can only get better. I have seen Freeview on this set and apart from the bitrate problems I see no difference between it and standard analogue pictures. Just my tuppence worth.

DougieB

[lovecats]

DougieB,

I would highly suggest a visit to the opticians, seriously, its no joke losing vision to THAT extent, better to sort it out now, prevent it getting any worse....

whatever next ? " my asda 26" lcd tv is better than your 9" CRT Projector ? "


PS: place a grid across any image, and it will be percieved as sharper.....its only sharper cause you are seeing the squares that make up the image......... its not actually sharper....

[RMCF]

Originally Posted by Paul Cooksley

Well, I have a trusty Sony 32" CRT widescreen set, that I bought just over 2 and a half years ago.

Recently, within the past few weeks, I've been getting itchy feet and wanted to look into getting a bigger, 40" screen - so obviously, these days it's really either LCD or Plasma of course..

Now, because I usually have Sony equipment and have been very happy with it, I have been looking at quite a few Sony LCD's (40" versions).

Now, here's my point: Looking at the freeview pictures (which is what I would be watching alot of) on these (some high end sets too), I am simply appalled at the quality! Ok, I know these LCD's/Plasma's tend to look the business on HD, but I have no plans to get Sky HD and therefore won't be getting HD on tv broadcasts until it comes to Freeview - so I won't be holding my breath!

So, as per the title of this thread: Am I alone in thinking that my trusty old 32" Sony CRT's picture is knocking the socks off most of the current Plasma's an LCD's? I know, people will say that CRT's are not as clear, hence hiding some of Freeview's imperfections, but generally, I think my CRT is absolutely fantastic compared with some very expensive LCD's.... Ok, so there are some very slight geometric issues towards the very edge of the picture (noticeable only really on straight lines) but there again, I think most CRT's suffer this slightly to some degree....

Do others share this opinion? I think I am gonna stick with my CRT for as long as poss !!!!

I am in EXACTLY the same situation as yourself.

I am a typical man and want the latest bit of gear, but I don't want to buy a flat panel because so many examples I see are so bad its untrue. My 36" CRT blows them away (with SkySD that is).

I appreciate that I may get great pics from an upscaled DVD, but majority of my viewing is, and would be for the forseeable future, SkySD - and this tends to look ropey on many sets.

Admittedly I have seen HD panels running HD demo's in the likes of Currys and they look stunning, but I would not be buying SkyHD for a while. Plus, why is it the demo's are always of flowers, butterflies, mountain ranges etc. Why not show some things that peoples actually watch daily.

[Jacksonjnr]

Originally Posted by lovecats

PS: place a grid across any image, and it will be percieved as sharper.....its only sharper cause you are seeing the squares that make up the image......... its not actually sharper....

Technically true

"Perception is the process of acquiring, interpreting, selecting, and organizing sensory information"

At the end of the day if someone has the sharpness on max and the colour up halfway or prefer LCD TV, and they are happy with their picture who are we to disagree. even if it means Goodmans, Beko or Alba CRT's

[lovecats]

Originally Posted by Jacksonjnr

At the end of the day if someone has the sharpness on max and the colour up halfway or prefer LCD TV, and they are happy with their picture who are we to disagree. even if it means Goodmans, Beko or Alba CRT's

Without law and order, there is anarchy..........

As CRT owners and appreciators of high quality displays - we are well within our rights to cry out at the bombardment of supermarket LCD displays taking over the nation !!

PS: Yes, the flowery demos on HD displays in shops - very nice looking, but the equivalent of paint sponging a damaged wall.........

[Tight Git]

Let's face it, the vast majority of the great British public care far more about what a tv looks like when it's off, than when it's on!

[TommyVecetti]

If your perception of poor SD quality on these flat panel screens is putting you off then you should think about buying a reasonable quality scaler to feed them SD with. The reason why SD is usually far from being acceptable on these screens is that the internal scalers in the sets themselves aren't exactly top quality. Some of the high end screens have quality scalers in them , but those are the screens that are usually demoed with DVDs or Bluray, so you never see them with free view on them.

[DougieB]

Originally Posted by lovecats

DougieB,

I would highly suggest a visit to the opticians, seriously, its no joke losing vision to THAT extent, better to sort it out now, prevent it getting any worse....

whatever next ? " my asda 26" lcd tv is better than your 9" CRT Projector ? "


PS: place a grid across any image, and it will be percieved as sharper.....its only sharper cause you are seeing the squares that make up the image......... its not actually sharper....

Lovecats

I already wear Glasses and my point is that I (me, myself) am happy with the pictures from my LCD vs my previous CRT. And as has been said before, viewing is subjective. BTW all my settings are at midway or lower.

DougieB

[Paul Cooksley]

Originally Posted by RMCF

I am in EXACTLY the same situation as yourself.

I am a typical man and want the latest bit of gear, but I don't want to buy a flat panel because so many examples I see are so bad its untrue. My 36" CRT blows them away (with SkySD that is).

I appreciate that I may get great pics from an upscaled DVD, but majority of my viewing is, and would be for the forseeable future, SkySD - and this tends to look ropey on many sets.

Admittedly I have seen HD panels running HD demo's in the likes of Currys and they look stunning, but I would not be buying SkyHD for a while. Plus, why is it the demo's are always of flowers, butterflies, mountain ranges etc. Why not show some things that peoples actually watch daily.

Yep, totally with you on this!

I do really want to get a larger size tv and have really, really *tried* to like the SD Freeview pictures - but - just can't! The only set, in my opinion (and to my eyes) that currently looks anything like a decent picture is the Sony 40" LCD X2000 - but even online this is £1,450ish - I only wanted to spend at maximum around £1,200.

Like you, I won't be watching a lot of DVD's - (which, once upscaled can look good) - I mainly watch alot of Freeview or archive tv stuff, which I transfer over from VHS (and yes, I know this can look ropey even on a CRT!)

I have stood in many, many showrooms playing with the various tv's (mainly Sony's I have to say) trying to like them - in fact - desperate to like them, but, as mentioned earlier - I can't - so for now, I will stick with my trusty old CRT.

I fully appreciate that these are just my views (and eyes!!) and everyone can have different opinions which are equally respected....

[lovecats]

Originally Posted by Paul Cooksley

I fully appreciate that these are just my views (and eyes!!) and everyone can have different opinions which are equally respected....

Yup, in the same way people used to think the earth was flat.

[badbob]

I'm happy with my LCD

No more flickering from PAL sources.
No more bad geometry
No more NTSC flickering (Panasonic fault)
No more optical focus, convergerence and geometry (RP projectors)
No horrible 100hz processing (so either have flicker or 100hz processing)
No more 3:2 judder or interlacing

Progressive, large displays for affordable money which can be carried by one person. Even if a 40/42" CRT direct view was possible, it'll be a good 1 metre thick. Higher detail because it's 1080p and progressive. Granted LCD has it's foibles, but given the choice I would now go flat screen. CRT people can stick to their small screen, eye strain inducing behemoths.

[RMCF]

Originally Posted by badbob

I'm happy with my LCD

No more flickering from PAL sources.
No more bad geometry
No more NTSC flickering (Panasonic fault)
No more optical focus, convergerence and geometry (RP projectors)
No horrible 100hz processing (so either have flicker or 100hz processing)
No more 3:2 judder or interlacing

Progressive, large displays for affordable money which can be carried by one person. Even if a 40/42" CRT direct view was possible, it'll be a good 1 metre thick. Higher detail because it's 1080p and progressive. Granted LCD has it's foibles, but given the choice I would now go flat screen. CRT people can stick to their small screen, eye strain inducing behemoths.

I appreciate that some people see flickering on CRTs but I never have.

I also see no geometry issues on my Panasonic.

I don't carry my TV around all day. It was heavy once to install but after thats done the weight is irrelevant to me.

As for the depth of it. Well my 36" is certainly deep but its ass goes into an alcove that I wouldn't use for anything else, with the front edge of the screen flush with the walls, so for all I could care it isn't using up any space in my room.

As for small screen size, if I was switching to a flat panel I would probably go for a 37", so I would not gain much on screen size as well.

All these reasons are making me stick with CRT for the meantime.

[Sonic67]

I'd say my LCD spends half it's life as a giant PC monitor. I have a small shuttle PC attached that is also linked to broadband. I get in at night tap on my wireless keyboard and the PC boots up. By the time I've sat down I'm on the Net. I check out all the news and sport read these forums and then I switch back to using the screen as a TV. Sometimes I listen to internet radio or play a game. F.E.A.R looks awsome on such a huge screen. I also have HD cable and HD DVD. 18 months ago my main PC was in a back bedroom and not as accessible as it is now. Even upscaled DVD can look impressive sometimes. My old CRT is in the kitchen/dining room and is still used but I wouldn't want to go back to having it as my main set now.

If you are really going to spend your time doing nothing beyond watching VHS tapes, DVDs and SD TV CRT may still have a future for you. For me I'd find it limited.

[lovecats]

Originally Posted by RMCF

I don't carry my TV around all day. It was heavy once to install but after thats done the weight is irrelevant to me.

totally agree 100%.

Moaning about the weight of a CRT, is like building a house out of lego bricks, and moaning that old fashion bricks are just too heavy and unmanageable....

at the end of the day, 90% of flat panel owners stick their TVs in the corner, the corner of the room is the best place for all round viewing angles.... having a crt or a lcd in the corner makes no difference, space wise.

whatever next ? Elvis is rubbish, and Kylie is the best, so modern, slim, all the latest tunes on ipod, Elvis only released his music on vinyl, huh, rubbish !!!

[badbob]

I would probably go for a 37", so I would not gain much on screen size as well.

I hope you know that your 36" CRT is more than 1" smaller visible screen than a 37" LCD or Plasma. Also because a flat screen uses less physical space it's less imposing, so you can buy bigger. Trust me if you had a 32" 46" you'll want to go for the 46". But you can't buy a 46" CRT can you? Note I'm not a lifestyle person, my speakers are Kef Reference and have a SVS cylinder sub!

Flicker for NTSC 60hz is not too noticeable but for 50hz it's really obvious. You'll notice it much worse on a PC CRT monitor, even at 85hz I see flicker. At 60hz it's horrible. Although it seems TV's seem to have less flicker, once you see it...also more tiring on the eyes. I can now see interlacing and it's really horrible.

I can also use a LCD as a high resolution windows and gaming screen, a normal TV doesn't have the resolution for either (with newer games that reallly deserve PC like resolutions)

My point being about depth is that I can fit a 40+ screen, in a much smaller space on the racking and not sticking way out. A 36" is deeper than my rack itself! Also couldn't get upstairs nor through the door. Also will need 2+ people to unbox it. Also comparing black levels and LCD is getting very good now, there was hardly any difference between black test screen and the black fascia, in a fairly dim room.

I can understand your reasoning, you've spent a good chunk on that Panasonic TV.

My flat screen TV is not in the corner, it's along a straight wall.
btw I do like CRT front projectors, if you're prepared to pay out the extra.

[Sonic67]

Similar thoughts here. Because there's no tube you can set the TV back further. Because the TV is back further you can go bigger instead if you like. My TV is is a shallow bay window. The largest CRT I could have before it projected into the room was 28". With a flat TV I can go way bigger than I could currently afford. Eventually I'd block the light coming in through the window. Being in the bay I have room for the left and right speakers which are mounted on the wall on either side and on the right is the subwoofer and on the left is the Shuttle PC. The centre speaker is under the TV. With a CRT I'd also have to get shielded speakers. If I moved it into the corner I'd then have problems arranging the speakers.

With a flat screen you also have the option to wall mount. Then the light weight and flat screen come into their own.

[lovecats]

Originally Posted by badbob

I can now see interlacing and it's really horrible.
............................btw I do like CRT front projectors, if you're prepared to pay out the extra.

How so ? this is simply not possible. do u mean u can pick out the affects of interlacing ? if so, which ones ? CRTs are very smooth, and dont produce zig zag lines, like the grid based flat panels do.....

60hz on a pc crt is indeed awfull......... 85hz is ok though, 100hz is excellent......its more noticeable on pc monitors, as they are non interlaced...... interlaced 50hz TVs are very good at masking the refresh issues.......

very true, CRT FP are indeed the best images Ive ever seen, which is the reason I put up with my 4 foot long, 70kg CRT FP..........

[badbob]

For NTSC DVD's I notice the scanlines, which also shows jaggies up. With LCD being it's not progressive there are no scan lines, no judders and no jaggies. It also looks to have more definition to the image (no scanlines anymore)

To get rid of PAL 50hz flicker requires a 100hz set, and every one have horrible 100hz processing.

A standard 50hz flicker TV is noticeable, once you're used to totally flicker free image. That's why I never bothered with region 2 DVD's, although region 1 NTSC being lower rez, at least the TV was set to 60hz (and not forgetting speed up issues or censhorship on r2)

The problem with FP is installation/placement. You really need to install it on the ceiling, and being it's there setting it up is harder to do. Mate had a Electrohome, it's big, noisy but produced nice images, compared to what was available at the time (early gen LCD projectors)

CRT FP aren't selling as well anymore, people are moving to DLP.

One drawback with flat screens is there is no space for a centre speaker to be placed ontop.

You only get jaggies on LCD with games, therefore you need to apply for AA. For movies there is no need.

[lovecats]

Interesting comments........

I find the quality of the dvd player can dramtically affect the image quality...

Using upsampled Panny S97, the output images on my FP Crt are stunningly good, most people think they are watching HD DVD, theyre that good.

There is marginal flicker on 50hz TVs, on my Trinitron, you can only really notice that the refresh is low, on scenes with mostly white or v.light backgrounds....

having said that, I do find the lower intensity light from a crt, to be easier on the eyes, than the fluorescent light from LCDs. Plasmas I find are easier on the eyes than LCD also.

Its possible I might get used to LCD brightness if I owned a set, but I doubt it, as my laptop isnt easy on the eye, hence my other post about inventing laptops with CRT displays !

As for DLPS, well, unless the 3 chip DLPs are made affordable, i would NEVER own or use a single chip DLP.... the way the images are created is madness, your eyes are bombarded with 100s of single coloured frames a second, to fool your eye into thinking you are seeing a full colour image......no wonder a lot of people get headaches or even get ill from wathcing these...........Im suprised they are allowed to even be sold, considering health and safety issues..........