I have had both CRT and DLP projections, and in my case the DLP beat the CRT by a good bit. Both were from the same manufacturer. I also found that, at least in my opinion, my LCD projection beat out the DLP, but that would be mostly because the DLP was only 1080i while the LCD is 1080p.

 

Plasmas burn a lot more electricity and my dad's 46" will heat up a room by 10-15 degrees.

 

I got a 42" LG LCD for $800 new!

Go LCD, just as good and a nice long lifespan.

 

You're confusing pixel count on a computer monitor with transmitted resolution.
Back before High Def, NTSC (which is the broadcast standard here in the States) was 525 lines, and was an interlaced signal. (of those 525 lines about 480 were picture and the other lines were for closed captioning, VITS, VERS, etc.). The little electron gun in your CRT would shoot all the odd scan lines first then go and shoot all the even scan lines after that (hence the interlaced term). Each set of scanned odd was a field, each set of even was a field. Each field took 1/30 of a second, every two fields made a "frame" (60 fields per second because NTSC operated at 60Hz - AC current). CRTs did not run a higher resolution. Before HD there were 525 lines of resolution, HD-CRTs ran 1080 or 720.

Then came HD. Because we love to make things as complicated as possible in this world, there was not a single agreed upon standard for HD. The end result was two formats which are 720P and 1080i. (P is progressive scanning and "i" is interlaced) FOX and ABC are 720P . . . CBS and NBC are 1080i.

When flat screens came to market they had pixels (instead of scanning on a tube) and originally either 720P or 1080i and would up/down convert accordingly. Now, some monitors are compatible with both formats as well as 1080P (I'll get to that format in a moment) None of the networks or "cable" stations broadcast in 1080P (although some services are offering 1080P for pay per view movies - DirecTV for instance).

HOWEVER, (and this is a long way of saying it) 1080P is not BS. Also, no HD formats are 1920x1200. Some monitors (computer) may have a pixel count like that, but it's not a broadcast standard.

Most post production mastering is done in 1080P (which is the highest resolution capable for HD). This is why monitors are now 1080P compatible. Depending on what your monitor's resolution capabilities are it will up or down convert to make it display properly on that monitor. So, 1080P . . . as good as it gets as far as original signal.

Actually, we'll just leave it at that . . .don't even ask about frame rates.

Actually, that's not true. It's a marketing gimmick. As for contrast ratio . . . the specs every manufacturer touts are meaningless. There is no industry standard for measuring contrast ratio (which is the difference between the darkest and brightest pixels on a display). Manufacturers use any one of various methods, be it ANSI, VESA, or FPDM, and even then none of them run those tests in the same manner. They essentially decide which number is going to sound cool as far as marketing goes and apply whichever test in whichever manner is going to produce the result they want. If you look at specs you'll see contrast ratios ranging anywhere from 1,000:1 to as high as 5,000,000:1, which is really absurd when you stop to think about it. Massive ranges of contrast is not necessarily a great thing . . . seriously, if some number were as high they some claim you'd need welding goggles to watch some sets. Numbers like 1,000,000:1 - which are on a lot of sets these days - mean nothing in the real world and how you're watching the set in whatever lighting conditions you're watching it in.

As you're looking for a lower end set, look at the pic on a calibrated set. Does it look washed out to you with what are supposed to be blacks looking grey? Is there details in the shadows or are the blacks crushed? etc.etc.


Response rate (or response time) is the amount of time it takes for a pixel to go from black to white and then back to black. This amount of time is measured in milliseconds so the faster the better (the lower the number the faster it is). Slow response times is what accounts for the "blur" or ghosting that some people can see, especially when there is motion if a picture (although this is not the only thing that causes this effect - it's also why ABC went with 720P, better for football and sports . . . less "trailing" image).

But, just like contrast ratio, manufacturers are ticky in how they measure response rates..

Now, when you're shopping for a set/monitor you'll see stuff like refresh rates (or response time) at 120Hz or 240Hz and now I think there is 480Hz. In theory the higher the Hz number the better . . . but as is usually the case that isn't necessarily true. Can the higher the Hz rate lessen stutter/motion lag/trailing/ghosting/whater you want to call it? Yes (and some would claim this isn't necessarily good, especially if the original material was shot on film . . . the faster refresh rates make the pic look like video) . . . just be aware that there are also side-effects from higher Hz rates . . . such as noise in the picture. Also, some filmic effects end up being lost to such rates (ie depth of field). All in all, pumping up the Hz refresh rate is a technological trick. Why did manufacturers really do it? Games and 3D. Honestly, for most people, they never seeing the trailing effect. Best bet is to watch different monitors that have varying refresh rates and see what looks best to your eye.

You'll see a lot about LED v. LCD

Think "ZERO Trans Fats!" labels on food. Doesn't mean there's no fat.

Here's what I mean. LED sets are just LCD sets with LED backlighting. How manufacturers implement this differ. Some do back lighting, some do edge lighting, and some do dimming. A lot are using edge lighting because it allows for a really thin monitor (and supposedly higher contrast ratios). A thin monitor does not mean it's good (unless all you're doing is carrying it around all the time, in which case I guess it would be a good thing). Right now, a lot of these edge lit LED sets have edge and corner contrast/lighting bleed/distortion. Honestly, LED is no big shakes . . . it's more for the sake of marketing than any real value.

 

Well said Kobi!

I love my 55 inch LED Samsung LCD. It is "only" 120Hz but that is not a problem for me.

 

A little note . . .

with regard to refresh rate/response time . . . that might be confusing

The miliseconds number (how fast it goes black/white/black) the lower the better.

The Hz number . . . the higher the better . . . .well, in theory at least. 120Hz is fine (as Norm demonstrated above).

480Hz? I mean, seriously . . . I've seen that advertised . . .but, what the hell?

Gimmick - for the most part. Yes, it can accomplish what it claims, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

Then again, I don't play games on my TV and I'll never watch THREE-D either.

God . . . I can't wait till the 3D fad is over.



and after all is said an done . . . I'll take my Thomson 38" 1080i CRT (which is 9 - almost 10 years old) and put it up against ANY LCD/LED/Plasma set on the market today and it will blow any of them out of the water in terms of picture quality . . . specs be damned!

(It weighs over 300 lbs though . . . when I moved it from LA to the prairie-land, the moving guys were not pleased)

 

@Kobi, I don't think you understood what i was saying. 1080p resolution is 1920x1080 as we all know. What i was getting at is that with the mainstream of 1080p television sets, most computer display manufacturers have set there highest output resolution to 1920x1080(sometimes 1920x1200), which is a way smaller usable work area than they were offering pre-1080p mainstream. I also understand that 1080p is an HD format as well as 720p and that they are "broadcast" resolutions(which is what i was calling BS, because broadcast resolutions are setting the standard for all resolutions be it broadcast or not, and this is bad for those of us who enjoy higher resolutions in our computer displays). But where you are wrong is in saying that 1080p is as good as it gets. 1440p is nearer to release than you might think and 4320p(i can dream) might be around in my lifetime. You blew my comment all out of proportion in an attempt to flex your internet muscle, which is fine, we all do it, but i just wanted to clear that up.

Like you say, the higher refresh rates are a big plus for gaming, especially with the contrast ratio and size of displays currently out. Yes, some of these new features may degrade picture quality, but that is why you turn all the "glamorous" settings off for your movie watching input(HDMI black level, Noise reduction, edge enhancement, etc.) to keep that "as close to original as possible" picture.

I am 100% with you on the 3D hype. Until there are some major changes made to how it is done, I have no desire to watch anything in 3D. In fact, i feel that until 3D can be viewed without "spectacles" of any sort to provide the effect, i want nothing to do with it.

I would very much like to see this Thomson display of yours, do you have a link to the specs on it or a model number? I can't say i believe that a 10 year old display is superior in picture quality to some of the more modern displays.

Either way, you seem to know your stuff and I am not trying to degrade you; I only wanted to set things straight since I did not go as in depth as you did with my previous post.

Edit: Is it the F38310? If so, I may believe you.

 

Are you REALLY going to notice anything different over 1080p after 120hz? I mean really, sit back and watch the damn show, not the pixels.

 

I've seen similar arguments about frame rates. The argument being that you can't see anything over 60fps so why would you bother to try and achieve anything higher...well, the fastest speed limit is 75 so why do we have vehicles that go faster? As for sitting back and watching the show instead of the pixels, some people are very picky, myself being one of them.(I currently have a setup that i do not feel lives up to my standards, but money does not always permit for that sort of thing) When video and audio quality is not up to that persons standards, the viewing of the show is just not enjoyable no matter how good it may be.

 

I misunderstood you. The wording of your original post made it sound like you were saying 1080P was some BS format and that 1900x1200 was some format that existed and was better.


We're talking about what is . . . not what can be. 1080P is it at the moment. Nothing is shot or posted in 1440. And besides 1440 is essentially line doubling 720 (which is what they used to do with processing 525). You most likely won't see any changes in line resolution for a LONG time. The cost to change infrastructure just to get to where we are now was phenomenal - not to mention it was like pulling teeth. In terms of return on the dollar no one is willing to do that. Now, if everything becomes software based instead of hardware based, and the only operating costs becomes cameras, then maybe, but that would also mean the end of OTA and such, and all delivery content becomes online. That won't happen for a long time. (They still haven't figured out how to monetize it yet). Maybe in your lifetime, certainly not mine.


If I wanted to flex my internet muscles (I like that term, by the way) about video broadcast standards I'd do it in an engineer's forum, not a truck forum. I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions I read here that could confuse the OP (and possibly others interested in getting new sets). My little notes were in the most elemental layman's terms. And, as I stated I misunderstood your post, I wasn't trying to slam you. If you were here, I'd give you an engineering pat on the back and say "My bad."

When everything is xfered in 4K and we can view it as such at home, then we're talkin!

I've seen the latest "state-of-the-art" monitors capable of displaying 3-D without glasses. (The surface "glass" is a multi-faceted prism kind of thing). You'll be waiting a long time. (It works, by the way, but it's nothing to write home about).

It is. It was sold in the US under the RCA label. I got mine from Thomson back in the day from the company when I was doing telecine. My monitor came with some tweaks. (Not sure if the coating on the glass was the same). Supposedly they were notorious for power supply failures, but so far - knock on wood - mine has held up. Once it goes I'm going to be seriously depressed. (It just a matter of time though - it's already taking longer to warm up). Although my favorite CRT was in the days before HD. I had a 38" (1:33) made by PROTON. They originally were a small company out in Orange County, CA. They had their glass made by Mitsubishi but had it shipped in stripped. They did their own proprietary phosphors and masking and electronics. Their monitors rocked! That was like 15 or so years ago and back then it was $3,800 bucks. That'd be about $5,150 in today's dollars.


Ditto.

 

Alright Kobi, now i have a question. Since most motion pictures are recorded with 35mm film which is no doubt superior to current High Def resolutions, why is it that getting to 1080p was so much of a challenge?

That "glasses free" 3D display sounds pretty cool. I have to say though, the day i have a computer sitting in my house capable of producing interactive holographic images is the day I can die a happy man.

...btw, the pat on the back is appreciated.

 

Ive been having the same debate with myself.

Plasma it is!

 

I don't understand you question. What do you mean by "getting to 1080P so much of a challenge"?

If this is what I think it means . . . (virtual sex with whomever you want . . .) (did you ever see Douglas Trumbell's Brainstorm?) my associates and I have talked about this for decades. When it happens, and it will, it will mean the end of society because everything will cease as everyone just plugs into a state of endless . . . well, you know.

 

Well 1080p has taken many years and many dollars to deliver to consumers...I ask why because 35mm film provides a higher resolution(in a sense) than 1080p. Why was it so hard to achieve, and why did they not go for something bigger than 1080p?

No i have not seen it, but i will add it to my queue...and yes, I think you get the general idea on what I am "fantasizing" about.

 

This is gonna take a while to answer. It involves tech, history, and general story telling about how things are shot (in the past and now). I'm pretty verbose (I can't even write my name in under ten minutes) and we're leaving for dinner in five minutes to some place half an hour away. I'll answer when I get back tonight.

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant.
Do check out Brainstorm. I think you'll dig it. It was made about 27 years ago (and that's when I last saw it) so it might be a bit dated, but the idea is cool. Stars Christopher Walken, Natalie Wood (her last film before she died), Cliff Robertson, and Louise Fletcher. (God, Natalie Wood was hot)