Dismiss Notice
Attention AVForums app / Tapatalk users
Sadly GDPR means that, from 25th, we can no longer offer access to AVForums via the branded app or Tapatalk.
Click here for more information.

New HDTV sets using CRT's announced by Samsung !

Discussion in 'General TV Discussions Forum' started by Nick_UK, Jan 10, 2005.

  1. Nick_UK

    Nick_UK
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,748
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +270
    "Samsung though has developed a new technique to create high-definition CRT (cathode ray tube) sets which are a third thinner at the back end than conventional CRT sets.

    This also means that the sets are about a third of the price of plasma screens.

    The CRT HDTV is aimed at people who are nervous of spending so much on a technology, like plasma, that has been criticised for "screen burn" - when a mark from a static image is left etched in the screen.

    "People trust CRT technology and are comfortable with it - many are still scared of plasma or LCD because of screen burn. We are still educating the public though," said Samsung's Genevieve Cosen.

    The set is due out in June this year and was an innovation in engineering and design award winner at this year's show."


    Souurce : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4160731.stm

    Samsung already do HD capable CRT TV's in the US using ordinary CRT's which cost the UK equivalent of £550.
     
  2. zAndy1

    zAndy1
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Messages:
    21,987
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    163
    Ratings:
    +8,432
    Yeah looks interesting, but are they still restricted by the size limitations of CRT sets? If they can do one of these in 42" for a good price they might be onto a winner!

    Andy
     
  3. Nick_UK

    Nick_UK
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,748
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +270
    Well the limiting factor so far has been the depth of the tube, but if these sets are 30% shallower than ordinary CRT's, bigger screens could be on the cards. The CRT might not be as dead as some people are thinking.
     
  4. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,343
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +809
    Let's hope a 50Hz capable version is available soon if that one isn't. Be great to be able to watch 1080i stuff without de-interlacing on a set that isn't the size of a small car.

    (Wonder if it weighs any less - or more - than a conventional CRT set? I remember helping move HDTV monitors in the early 90s - they weighed an absolute tonne)
     
  5. Nick_UK

    Nick_UK
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,748
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +270
    Take a look at this Launching June 2005, price $1,199 (that's £640 !) :rolleyes:


    Just perusing the rest of this site makes you realise just how far the Euopean TV market is falling behind the Americas. They already have both terrestrial and satellite HDTV, while we argue about which standards to adopt. Bloomin' EU committees ! Do you know that a donkey is a horse designed by a committee ? :laugh:
     
  6. zAndy1

    zAndy1
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Messages:
    21,987
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    163
    Ratings:
    +8,432
    Yeah but 30" just isn't big enough, especially for movie watching. This will only be a serious contender for me if it's available as at least a 36" model, for Sky hidef day to day watching that would be ideal!

    Cheers,
    Andy
     
  7. hornydragon

    hornydragon
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    28,346
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Somewhere near the M4 most of the time......
    Ratings:
    +1,218
    there are already CRT sets that will suppport 1080i (720p is a different kettle of fish)
    " which are a third thinner at the back end than conventional CRT sets." isnt exactly flat is it........
     
  8. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,343
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +809
    Yep - though going first isn't always good news. After all the US ended up with NTSC - we waited 10 years and got PAL...

    By delaying the move to HD we're going to be able to use MPEG4 - which may deliver higher quality pictures or more services.
     
  9. Quickbeam

    Quickbeam
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    The above announcement would be be good news if 1080i were to become the predominant UK HD format, but not if Sky and others go with 720p as they have indicated. None of the CRT HDTVs currently on sale can display 720p natively - including the new 'slim' Samsung models. Instead, 720p is sliced and diced to 1080i, with a considerable loss of resolution.
     
  10. hornydragon

    hornydragon
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    28,346
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Somewhere near the M4 most of the time......
    Ratings:
    +1,218
    1080i is alot easier to move to 1080p (as far as i am concerned 720p is more EDTV (extended definition TV)
     
  11. Nick_UK

    Nick_UK
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,748
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +270
    I'd heard so much about "inferior NTSC" that the first time that I went to the US, I was sure that the poor quality of NTSC pictures would be immediately apparent. It wasn't. For 90% of the viewing public (viewing terrestrial PAL) there is no discernable difference. It's only when big phase errors occur that PAL is noticeably better, and phase errors are rare.

    As far as I'm concerned, PAL superiority is a myth.
     
  12. Master Rahl

    Master Rahl
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    More compression won't give you higher quality. It will shrink the amount of data though, meaning more channels can be squeezed in.
     
  13. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,343
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +809
    You're right that NTSC vs PAL is no longer the issue it once was - but it wasn't a myth historically.

    This isn't just PAL vs NTSC though - the UK PAL implementation has a much wider bandwith - so sharper pictures (and a higher chroma subcarrier frequency means sharper colour as well) The BBC nearly adopted 625 line NTSC 4.43 as a standard - which would have provided pictures as sharp as our PAL standard, rather than the softer NTSC system they use in the US.

    Of course the US has digital cable, satellite etc. just like the UK - so often the NTSC/PAL bits are only from the set-top box to the TV.

    I've been to the US quite a few times, and the pictures I saw were noticably softer, and the chroma definitely odd. (I suspect this is more dodgy "autotint" processing more than anything else though)

    Good NTSC is good. Good PAL is good.

    Bad NTSC is lousy, bad PAL is just not quite so good.

    (Phase errors becoming hue errors are noticable - even a few degrees of error - wherease in PAL you just get desaturation)
     
  14. Nick_UK

    Nick_UK
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,748
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +270
    Good points. Actually, I think the Americans did themselves a favour by adopting 525 line "soft" NTSC, because when digital TV came in, they didn't notice a difference :) Many UK viewers could see the difference between 625 line terrestrial PAL and Sky or Freeview digital TV.
     
  15. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,343
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +809
    Indeed - 16:9 and component are the obvious plus points of Sky/Freeview, however analogue PAL increasingly looks better in 4:3 than digital as it can't be overcompressed!

    One of the few benefits of analogue is that there is little scope for trading off image quality against cost - you either deliver a full bandwith picture or you don't with analogue. With digital you can get the accountants involved and reduce your transmission costs by squeezing in too many channels, and reducing picture quality.

    Certainly standard definition TV in the UK hasn't massively improved in picture quality terms if you had a good analogue signal - though it has if you had a lousy analogue installation but can now get Freeview/Sky.
     
  16. RecordablDVDfan

    RecordablDVDfan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,902
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Ratings:
    +49
    You must be joking. Transmission of far better video quality is now at last the norm in the UK. 20 years ago so much material was recorded using very low grade film (I mean outside shots NOT studio) hardly anything was done on VT. It shows how hard up the UK was. Australia have done nearly everything on VT for 30 years ie a maybe crass example is Prisoner (CBH) started in 1979, outside shots - yes VT. What did we produce at that time and for many years after on VT, nowt!

    The arrival of Freeview and Sky has forced broadcasters to get up to date with the rest of the worlds HQ video standards
     
  17. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,343
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +809
    No - and I wasn't talking about "production" standards - I was talking about "transmission" standards. They aren't the same thing.
    You're missing my point. In those days the transmission system wasn't the limiting quality factor -it was the production system.

    Yep - poor quality 16mm tranfers (usually the telecine and grading were the limiting issues, as modern re-transfers of the same film material improve it hugely - see the Dr Who DVD releases where the original 16mm sequences are often re-transferred) were used for location inserts into studio shows, however entire series were also shot on high-quality OB video (Barchester, much of the 80s Dickens adaptations, Rockliffe's Babies, The King of the Ghetto, The Old Men at the Zoo, Charters and Caldicot etc.) There was certainly far more OB drama video production in the 70s and 80s than there is now - though DigiBeta (flickered to 25fps) - and DVCPro as well - is increasingly used as a "film replacement"

    The problem in times gone by wasn't the transmission system it was the cameras and/or telecines. (I'm not arguing that video 20 years ago was poor - I'm a real fan of decent video over film - but it has improved)

    High quality video - say Centre Court at Wimbledon - as received from Crystal Palace in my lounge was extremely high quality - even when shot on tubed LDK-5 cameras in the 70s and 80s. (Which delivered excellent pictures in good conditions)

    These days, modern CCD cameras, high quality telecineing and HD production mean that the source video is even higher quality than it used to be.

    However the introduction of compression systems into the transmission chain mean that the limiting factor in image quality received in the home these days is the transmission path, NOT the source or production standard.

    In some cases the same source material, say a high quality live OB, can look better on analogue than digital.

    Not the case - the Aussies used VT because it was cheaper. 16mm film was always a more expensive location solution AIUI - especially in the BBC - as you had separate film crews, processing, film editors and film sound dubbing teams to produce the film location inserts, you didn't just shoot the film and edit it on VT in those days, you cut the film and played/edited them in as completed inserts. This was a historical/union thing, it certainly wasn't because it was cheaper.

    Chosing Cell Block H as an exterior example isn't a good idea - some of their location video was really, really, really bad... (I saw some stuff that would have failed BBC transmission review as unbroadcastable go out)

    You're wrong about no video being used for locations though. Entire series were shot on OB video - loads of costume drama (Barchester, Dickens etc.), Dr Who (some mid 70s episodes, and pretty much everything from 1986 onwards, one series didn't use the studios at all), as well as lots of the contemporary drama output of the 80s was shot either multicamera video (the Beeb had a number of 3 or 4 camera units built for this task - shooting onto 2" and then 1") or single camera video (using a small vehicle to house the VTR and picture racking position) Children's drama moved entirely to video in the 80s ISTR - from Grange Hill, to The Chronicles of Narnia, The Children of Green Knowe, Five Children and It etc. (My father was a vision engineer in BBC OBs, and spent a LOT of time working on video drama in the 70s and 80s - so I have a rough idea what I'm talking about)

    Some of this was decent - some of it wasn't - but you could see the quality, or lack of it, in your living room. Crystal Palace analogue was pretty lossless from the output of the transmission VTR, or incoming link for a live show. Often there was only a synchroniser (not even that for a live studio show) in the way, plus an analogue vision mixer.

    These days there is so much compression - even on BBC One - that the quality I get in my living room is now far more dictated by the transmission path, not the source video. The Beeb have internally deemed 9Mbs the data rate at which MPEG2 with a long-ish GOP is deemed "transparent" - 3-4.5Mbs is what they transmit at and it isn't transparent.

    PAL I transmission with a decent signal was effectively transparent (albeit with a little bit of low-pass filtering when D3 was introduced, as D3 digital composite was VERY sharp, potentially sharper than 4:2:2 digital!)

    Don't get me wrong - component 16:9 digital transmission is capable of really high quality results, and I watch it in RGB because I hate PAL subcarrier artefacts. However it is difficult to argue that the current digital transmission systems are massively better than the PAL transmission systems used previously.

    It is much easier to argue that component digital PRODUCTION, along with modern CCD cameras and telecines, has improved the quality of the transmission tapes delivered for transmission. Sadly we're not benefiting from this quality improvement as much as we might.

    Err - except the BBC were already using digital technology, CCD cameras, digital VTRs etc. long before Freeview and Digital satellite. Many of the BBC studios in London were already digital and 16:9 capable before the launch of the BBC's digital services.

    And the BBC's video standards were traditionally deemed amongst the highest in the world throughout the 70s and 80s. (When it was actually difficult to generate decent pictures - these days it is much easier)

    My argument isn't that we should stay with PAL - it is that PAL transmission wasn't the limiting factor for image quality in the UK. These days digital transmission often is...
     
  18. Nick_UK

    Nick_UK
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,748
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +270
    'Ere watch it ! I worked for Rank Cintel in the late 70's & early 80's making telecine machines ! Remember that we only had silicon transistors and a few op-amps in those days :)
     
  19. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,343
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +809
    Hmmm - I had the great joy of getting stuff transferred using a Mk II job in a BBC region as late as the mid 90s. Not amazing quality - but also not terrible...

    Having seen the difference between the same 16mm transferred in the early 1970s with the same material (albeit older) transferred on a modern telecine (Sprint for example) you can see the major improvement though. (Arguably modern noise reduction can help as well)
     

Share This Page

Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice