Little expensive boxes that output different video signals, what are those called?

[soundfx4]

I sort of need to buy a new TV and one year ago I did a lot of reading about CRT, LCD, and DLP technology, and finally decided that unless I knew those technologies like the back of my hand, the only other way I'm going to be able to make the correct choice for a TV is if I am able to actually try them out the way I need to. That is to say, I'd like to be able to display different types of images and different signals to TVs that are on display in stores like best buy and circuit city. I'd like to see how every different resolution looks like on them, see how well dithering looks on different LCDs, etc. The only feasible way I could do this is by purchasing one of those little boxes that professional TV people ( :beer: ) use when repairing TVs, or doing a professional install of a home theater system. But there are a few problems.

1: I'm not sure what those things are called

2: I'm afraid they are going to be very expensive, like 300-5,000 dollars.

3: As I'm sure there are going to be several different types with a HUDGE price range similar to something like I said above, I'm not sure what the differences in all of them would be.


If anyone can give me any information about these things, that would be very helpful.

Thanks! :D

[soundfx4]

does nobody know what I'm talking about? Or is this the wrong section? Grr...sorry :-/

[noxqzs]

1) it might sound a little simple, but they are called

Video Splitters (http://www.hallresearch.com/products/splitters/splitters.htm)

the other component you are reffering to that changes the signal output, is called a Video Scaler.

After what you described, I envision +50 monitors/displays. 2-3K wouldn't be an unreasonable number to expect. Research is the only thing I can advise here.

[soundfx4]

1) it might sound a little simple, but they are called

Video Splitters (http://www.hallresearch.com/products/splitters/splitters.htm)

the other component you are reffering to that changes the signal output, is called a Video Scaler.

After what you described, I envision +50 monitors/displays. 2-3K wouldn't be an unreasonable number to expect. Research is the only thing I can advise here.


holy crap, I really can't describe things well :beer: I really thought I described it well, but you aren't the first person to get a different picture then what I'm thinking of. Another person (on another forum) thought I was talking about a KVM switch. I thought it was just him, but I guess I didn't describe it well at all :(

Actually what I'm talking about generates it's own video signals for testing purposes. It outputs to several different means by which video can be transferred. Component, VGA, DVI, composite, etc. My plan is to use it to test out all the displays in stores one at a time. The main reason I want to do this is because I've seen some CRT displays that say they output 1080i, but when I pump a 1080i signal to them, with very small text, I find that the text is not legible in certain areas of the screen. I just want to make sure the display I buy will display high resolution and low resolution beautifully.

[noxqzs]

I see what you mean. Unfortunately there aren't any devices capable of exactly what you are reffering to. The best suggestion would be to get a high quality pc or DVD with all the necessary outputs, and use a calibration CD/DVD. Many techs use the CD/DVDs to calibrate picture color and frequencies. They are not too expensive, and you can usually find basic ones wherever DVDs are sold.

[[Corporal Dan]]

i can tell you how to avoid needing such a device. Ignore LCD (too expensive, and low service life) and DLP (uber expensive)

Aperture Grile CRT is the way to go. Best color and contrast, longest service life, and pretty cheap too

[damarble]

Do you have a laptop? Or can borrow one? Get a S-video cable and VGA cable/DVI adapter. All new TV's should have at least one of those inputs. Then change your res on the laptop and see how it looks on the TV. You might need Powerstrip to test all the resolutions, since most laptops can't handle many res' by default.

[jeepguy_1980]

']i can tell you how to avoid needing such a device. Ignore LCD (too expensive, and low service life) and DLP (uber expensive)

Aperture Grile CRT is the way to go. Best color and contrast, longest service life, and pretty cheap too


I'm going to say you're wrong.


Avoid CRT, it's heavy and has the shortest life. CRT is susceptible to burn in, cannot display true non-interlaced signals (progressive scan signals) and has the lower picture quality. A typical CRT set will weigh well over 100lbs and be difficult to move. My LCD rear projection set weighs only 40 lbs.

Color wise, CRT is pretty vibrant has has good contrast. For a non-discerning eye, it might seem as bright as DLP in the store. Though, you will soon regret your decision.

LCD last forever and have no burn in. They don't last "forever", but a typical LCD panel will last 20 years running 8 hours a day before the color even begins to fade. LCD's are light weight and have no moving parts and pretty much cannot fail.

The only real complaint with LCD is the "screen door effect."

DLP screens look the best, have no burn in offer awesome bight color and contrast like CRT. They offer the sharp pictures like LCD and are light weight. They do not have a screen door effect. Some people might say (mostly true of older DLP sets) that DLP screens have a rainbow effect.

The only foreseable problem with DLP is that it uses a chip with millions of little mirrors that constantly move back and forth and a moving color wheel. Who knows the longjevity of such a device.

DLP sets and rear projection LCD sets (like one of my tvs) do use a light in the back to project the image on the front.

LCD comes in two types. LCD Panel and LCD rear projection.

Rear projection sets are very cost effective for screen size, quality, etc... However, the bulbs will burn out probably every two or so years. The bulbs are about $100-$200 depending on the set.


I have an LCD rear projection and a small LCD flat panel in my bedroom.

[jeepguy_1980]

These are pretty expensive boxes that test set top box picture quality.

They only range in price from $6400 - $28,000

Link to expensive boxes (http://www.tektronix.com/products/video_test/signal_analyzers.html)


Seriously, if you want to talk to a group of knowledgeable people, check out HDTVoice (www.hdtvoice.com)

[damarble]

The only foreseable problem with DLP is that it uses a chip with millions of little mirrors that constantly move back and forth and a moving color wheel. Who knows the longjevity of such a device.


They do go bad, go bad often, and are expensive to replace. So make sure you get the service plan. Highend models have less of a problem though, its the cheap ones you hav to worry about. Surprisingly, Samsung is one to avoid.

Also, if something does break in these thing, expect to be without your TV for a month, as it's hard to get the parts and the TV techs are usually swamped.

I work with several TV techs so I have first hand knowledge of "big screens".

[greenmaji]

Avoid CRT, it's heavy and has the shortest life. CRT is susceptible to burn in, cannot display true non-interlaced signals (progressive scan signals) and has the lower picture quality.

Most difficult to adjust for close to the best picture quality.

They pretty much need a perfesional to adjust the picture in correctly, that would be the reason most people think they have poor picture quality.

[nd4spdbh2]

i have seen all three.... i have 2 crt tv's in my house 32 and 20 and my friend has a 40some od inch lcd.... i also have a 62 inch Mitsubichi 1080P DLP tv.... i must say the DLP has by far supurior picuture quality. i hooked my computer through component video to the thing and the picure is Uphoric. its utterly amazing compared to all the other tv's i have listed above. I have tried my comp on the 32inch CRT with component and my friends 40incher LCD with component and the picutres were good buy no where near the brightness and contrast and clarity of the dlp..... DLP GETS MY VOTE....


as a side note the day i hooked my comp up to the 62inch tv, i also had 7.1 analog surround sound going to my YAMAHA HTR 5890... 980watt 7.1surround 150watt 10in sub 62inch DLP running in 1080i playing bf2.... it was sooo amazing, it made me feel so much better that day.. cus i was umm *sick* home from school :rolleyes:

[jeepguy_1980]

They do go bad, go bad often, and are expensive to replace. So make sure you get the service plan. Highend models have less of a problem though, its the cheap ones you hav to worry about. Surprisingly, Samsung is one to avoid.

Also, if something does break in these thing, expect to be without your TV for a month, as it's hard to get the parts and the TV techs are usually swamped.

I work with several TV techs so I have first hand knowledge of "big screens".



What on them fails? People here use LCD monitors, which are the same technology. The only part that realy "fails" is the bulb on rear projection LCDs. It's designed to do so. It also is a 5 minute swap.

I don't think LCDs have a history of failures. There may be a lemon or two, as with each type of TV. LCDs will far out live any other type of TV.


BTW: My bedroom TV is a flat panel Samsung HDTV LCD, which is 3 years old. I have a Sony LCD rear projection TV in my living room (9 months old). Then of course I have a sony LCD Xbrite computer monitor (3 months old), a Sony Xbrite LCD laptop monitor (14 months old) and an LCD monitor on my old Dell laptop (4 years old).

All of my LCD panels have the same picture quality they did brand new.

[damarble]

LCD's are normally fine. It more often the projection tv's that have problems. It's usually random. Boards (and there's often quite a few, I've seen the inside of many a big screen) just randomly give out. Some people get lucky and get a TV that lasts, some don't. The problem is that QC has gone to hell as they try to make the TV's more affordable.

[soundfx4]

I'm going to say you're wrong.


Avoid CRT, it's heavy and has the shortest life. CRT is susceptible to burn in, cannot display true non-interlaced signals (progressive scan signals) and has the lower picture quality.

I didn't even read everything you said yet, but I'm going to have to stop you right there. Everyone knows that CRTs always have displayed the best quality images for several reasons. Also, what are you talking about when you say they have a short life span?! Where did you hear such a load? My parents, and grandparents have a few different TVs from the 70's and 80's that still work very well.

The only reason people are switching to flat is because CRTs are heavy, and they take to long to warm up. Those are the only disadvantages, but MAN are those big disadvantages, because even I switched to an LCD PC display. HOWEVER, that is because PCs output high resolution, so it isn't an issue.

[jeepguy_1980]

You're saying boards give out? Like support boards?

[jeepguy_1980]

I didn't even read everything you said yet, but I'm going to have to stop you right there. Everyone knows that CRTs always have displayed the best quality images for several reasons.

The only reason people are switching to flat is because CRTs are heavy, and they take to long to warm up. Those are the only disadvantages, but MAN are those big disadvantages, because even I switched to an LCD PC display. HOWEVER, that is because PCs output high resolution, so it isn't an issue.


Everyone doesn't know that. DLP is much better than CRT and there aren't even DLP computer displays. CRTs are incapable of displaying sharp pictures, as can be verified by viewing text on big screen CRTs and they can't even display non-interlaced signals.

Their advantage of bright colors and contrast ratios has been equalled by DLPs.

And as for warm up time, that's my only complaint with my Tv. It takes a bit to warm up, longer than any CRT. It really sucks if you turn it off then back on real quick. Probably have to wait a minute +.

[soundfx4]

These are pretty expensive boxes that test set top box picture quality.

They only range in price from $6400 - $28,000

Link to expensive boxes (http://www.tektronix.com/products/video_test/signal_analyzers.html)


Seriously, if you want to talk to a group of knowledgeable people, check out HDTVoice (www.hdtvoice.com)


hah, I like the name of the link. :beer:

I will never understand why those stupid little things cost so much money, and I will never believe that those prices are actually justifiable. Chances are those boxes cost 500 bucks to make and the manufactures are just ripping people off because they are "professional" testing equipment :rolleyes: all manufactures do that and I have to say it ****es me off to no end, and the only way I would let it go is if someone was able to show me proof that those boxes actually cost thousands of dollars to make.

But anyway, I don't need anything quite like that :D

[jeepguy_1980]

There are DVDs available that are used to calibrate and test PQ if you want to go that route. I have one, though it's a few years old. Check out HDTVoice for the most used DVD. They will probably meet your needs, if you're looking for a technical PQ measurment. Though, likely any DVD in your collection will satisfy your needs.

Don't be fooled by bight images. Make sure that when your shopping the rep sets the tv to "Pro mode" or something that's not vibrant. If you're testing it with a DVD, use a darker movie, not some bright Pixar movie.

That will give you a better indication of performance. The box stores usually set their TVs on really bright settings to sell them, but when you get home, you'll realize that this is not the best for viewing, it just makes them stand out.

[soundfx4]

Everyone doesn't know that. DLP is much better than CRT and there aren't even DLP computer displays. CRTs are incapable of displaying sharp pictures, as can be verified by viewing text on big screen CRTs and they can't even display non-interlaced signals.

Their advantage of bright colors and contrast ratios has been equalled by DLPs.

And as for warm up time, that's my only complaint with my Tv. It takes a bit to warm up, longer than any CRT. It really sucks if you turn it off then back on real quick. Probably have to wait a minute +.


But that's just not true at all. CRTs have a much better image quality. Why do you think all the pros use CRT computer displays? Almost all Photo shop professionals, and Video compositing pros prefer CRTs because the image quality is better. AND they can actually display low resolution images clearly UNLIKE all fixed resolution displays. I've done my homework on this, and I've already decided on CRT, I just need to find one that has a better picture then any of the others.

Also, the reason big screen CRT projectors can't display text clearly is because they are just standard displays. I'm talking about High-def tvs. HIGH-DEF. Ones that can display 1080 i and p.

Oh, and you are also wrong about CRT's not being able to display progressive images. Progressive means going strait from line 1 all the way down to the last line in an consecutive order. Computer displays are progressive, they don't use interlacing. The whole interlacing thing was started because when tvs were first invented, they couldn't scan all 580 lines fast enough, so they cut it in half. Did the odds first, and then went back in to fill the evens...or something like that. I don't know the details, but I'm pretty sure I'm right, or at least somewhat correct.

can someone else confirm this? I'm not sure about the progressive thing, but I think that is more or less correct.

[soundfx4]

There are DVDs available that are used to calibrate and test PQ if you want to go that route. I have one, though it's a few years old. Check out HDTVoice for the most used DVD. They will probably meet your needs, if you're looking for a technical PQ measurment. Though, likely any DVD in your collection will satisfy your needs.

Don't be fooled by bight images. Make sure that when your shopping the rep sets the tv to "Pro mode" or something that's not vibrant. If you're testing it with a DVD, use a darker movie, not some bright Pixar movie.

That will give you a better indication of performance. The box stores usually set their TVs on really bright settings to sell them, but when you get home, you'll realize that this is not the best for viewing, it just makes them stand out.


yeah, I'll probably have to go that route. I'll find a test DVD somewhere and use it, as I definitely can't afford anything more then 500 bucks for this purpose. And even 500 is pushing what I should spend.

[jeepguy_1980]

why do you care about lower resolutions on a high-def TV?

If you want a CRT then, fine. But games use them, b/c they're convinced they have better refresh rates over LCD computer monitors. I don't honestly know what the refresh rate of LCD tvs are, but LCD computer monitors can keep up with their CRT counterparts.

Yes, it's true fixed resolution displays are locked in at a fixed rate. For example, my RP HD LCDTV displays 780P, regardless of the input. All inputs are down or upcoverted to 780P.

CRTs can maybe accept a deinterlaced signal but all signals are then interlaced for projection onto the analog screen.

All HD CRTs are capable of displaying 1080i, not 1080p. Though, only high end LCDs and DLPs can display true 1080p signals.

[soundfx4]

CRTs can maybe accept a deinterlaced signal but all signals are then interlaced
for projection onto the analog screen.



All HD CRTs are capable of displaying 1080i, not 1080p. Though, only high end LCDs and DLPs can display true 1080p signals.

Well at least half of that is not true. Not all HD CRTs can even display 1080i. Many of them only go up to 720p. And while I have NEVER seen a 1080p CRT TV, it is possible to build one, and I'm sure one exist.


Just because it is a CRT display doesn't mean it has to go even and odds. CRT Computer displays almost ALWAYS use progressive scanning. Just found this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan

took me a few minutes to find it, but it flat out says that CRT computer displays use progressive scan. HAH! I knew it :D

Progressive scan is used in most CRTs used as computer monitors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan

[jeepguy_1980]

I didn't mean to say all CRTs display 1080i, though that is what I wrote. However, it is rather prevalent. 1080i has been available in CRTs for a while and is just now becoming available in other technologies.


As far as CRTs being able to display deinterlaced signals, I can't say for sure one way or the other. My research keeps going in circles. Half the sources say no and half say yes.

The only explanation I can find supporting the yes, is an argument stating that all pixles are lit at once. Meaning, while only 540 lines are being updated at once, the phosphates in the other 540 lines hold their color for a brief period, so all lines are still lit. Meaning that the CRT is still interlacing the signal, but they're claiming it's not really.

[soundfx4]

I didn't mean to say all CRTs display 1080i, though that is what I wrote. However, it is rather prevalent. 1080i has been available in CRTs for a while and is just now becoming available in other technologies.


I didn't think you actually meant it that way, but I thought I might as well just repsond to it anyway :)


As far as CRTs being able to display deinterlaced signals, I can't say for sure one way or the other. My research keeps going in circles. Half the sources say no and half say yes.

The only explanation I can find supporting the yes, is an argument stating that all pixles are lit at once. Meaning, while only 540 lines are being updated at once, the phosphates in the other 540 lines hold their color for a brief period, so all lines are still lit. Meaning that the CRT is still interlacing the signal, but they're claiming it's not really.

hmm...well now I'm not sure at all. I always thought computer CRT displays were progressive, but I guess there is really no way to tell just by looking at it...hmmm

Ok, I've formulated a plan! I'm going to take classes in TV repair so I can figure this out once and for all! I don't know when, or where I'm going to do this though :-/

[NsOmNiA91130]

Monitors are progressive.
SDTVs are interlaced.
CRT HDTVs are usually both.

[jeepguy_1980]

I didn't think you actually meant it that way, but I thought I might as well just repsond to it anyway :)



hmm...well now I'm not sure at all. I always thought computer CRT displays were progressive, but I guess there is really no way to tell just by looking at it...hmmm

Ok, I've formulated a plan! I'm going to take classes in TV repair so I can figure this out once and for all! I don't know when, or where I'm going to do this though :-/


There is a way to tell by looking at it. You need a video camera (a digital camera might suffice).

When you film CRTs or more specifically, film interlaced signals you can see the flickering on film. This is b/c the view rate of the camera either is not the same as the TV or not in synch with it.

If you look at a CRT on tape or snap several pictures of it using a digital camera, you will see the lines.

Here is a picture of mine from several years ago that explains what I'm saying.

Link to pic (http://www.loopfamily.net/images/Hosting/Computer/Tate%2011%20Months%20with%2024%20Pillow%202.JPG)

If you look at the tv, you can see what I'm talking about. This tv is an '01 model and probably has a worse refresh rate than anything you would buy. So, it might not be as obvious in a newer set. Also, not all of my pics turned out like this, so you might have to snap several pics to be sure, if using a digicam.

[soundfx4]

Monitors are progressive.
SDTVs are interlaced.
CRT HDTVs are usually both.


That's what I had always thought.

[soundfx4]

There is a way to tell by looking at it. You need a video camera (a digital camera might suffice).

When you film CRTs or more specifically, film interlaced signals you can see the flickering on film. This is b/c the view rate of the camera either is not the same as the TV or not in synch with it.

If you look at a CRT on tape or snap several pictures of it using a digital camera, you will see the lines.

Here is a picture of mine from several years ago that explains what I'm saying.

Link to pic (http://www.loopfamily.net/images/Hosting/Computer/Tate%2011%20Months%20with%2024%20Pillow%202.JPG)

If you look at the tv, you can see what I'm talking about. This tv is an '01 model and probably has a worse refresh rate than anything you would buy. So, it might not be as obvious in a newer set. Also, not all of my pics turned out like this, so you might have to snap several pics to be sure, if using a digicam.


wait...I thought that was just from the scan lines because they are never in sync with the camera capturing the image. I didn't think that had anything to do with interlacing. I'll have to experiment with that. But still, I need to take some broadcasting classes, as I don't understand this stuff enough.

[jeepguy_1980]

My TV doesn't have that problem nor does my monitor.


TV (http://www.loopfamily.net/images/Hosting/Computer/DSCN0290.JPG)

Monitor (http://www.loopfamily.net/images/Hosting/Computer/DSCN0277.JPG)

[jeepguy_1980]

Ignore how dirty my monitor is. You can't see that, except in that picture and when the monitor is off. I'm cleaning it now. I had no idea.

[soundfx4]

My TV doesn't have that problem nor does my monitor.


TV (http://www.loopfamily.net/images/Hosting/Computer/DSCN0290.JPG)

Monitor (http://www.loopfamily.net/images/Hosting/Computer/DSCN0277.JPG)


well of course they don't, because LCDs don't use a scan line like CRTs do.


lol, I just noticed what was on your monitor, it's my post! :beer:

btw, what keyboard is that? It looks awesomeriffic! :D

[jeepguy_1980]

That's the logitech G15 and it is the most awesome keyboard ever. I couldn't ever go back to a regular keyboard after having had this one.

A non-interlaced signal on a CRT shouldn't scan either, should it?

Maybe I have it wrong. This topic has exceeded my personal knowledge on the subject. I thought that if a CRT displayed a de-interlaced signal, it wouldn't scan. Because, scanning would indicate that not all pixels are updated at once.

[soundfx4]

That's the logitech G15 and it is the most awesome keyboard ever. I couldn't ever go back to a regular keyboard after having had this one.

A non-interlaced signal on a CRT shouldn't scan either, should it?

Maybe I have it wrong. This topic has exceeded my personal knowledge on the subject. I thought that if a CRT displayed a de-interlaced signal, it wouldn't scan. Because, scanning would indicate that not all pixels are updated at once.

I really dunno anymore. This far exceeds my knowledge as well. I had thought that unless the refresh rate of the monitor was synced with the refresh rate of the recording device it would show up even if the CRT was progressive. I actually asked one of my professors about this a few years ago. I specifically asked him how they capture monitors in the movies without getting that line, and he said something about the equipment was synced with the refresh rate of the displays. It sort of makes since, but I just don't know anymore.


Looks like my original plan to take classes on this is going to be the best idea :beer:

[jeepguy_1980]

movies using CRTs were done either by synching (the hard way)

or by putting the video in in the editing room.

[noxqzs]

to SYNCHRONIZE two components is not difficult. What you are basically doing is using the same 'clock' for all components. This is basically a way of telling two components when to both start/finish at the same time. Usually for monitors this requires 2 seperate sync signals Vertical and Horizontal. Some professional CRT monitors use 5 plug BNC inputs, 3 are RGB and 2 are V-H sync.

Scanning is the process of moving the electron beam horizontally/vertically across the screen. The term is the same if you are displaying an interlaced or progressive image. The difference with progressive is that the electron beam needs to be scanned across the screen at a faster frequency. Not all CRTs are capable of this. JeepGuy, what you mean by not all pixels are not displayed at once is defined as interlaced, EVEN and ODD lines are scanned separately.

[soundfx4]

to SYNCHRONIZE two components is not difficult. What you are basically doing is using the same 'clock' for all components. This is basically a way of telling two components when to both start/finish at the same time. Usually for monitors this requires 2 seperate sync signals Vertical and Horizontal. Some professional CRT monitors use 5 plug BNC inputs, 3 are RGB and 2 are V-H sync.

Now THAT is crazy! Why would anyone need all those plugs? I can't understand how that would make a difference in quality. VGA seams fine to me, I can't see any noise in a VGA signal. I mean it has all the different pins for colors and the V-H sync pins. And DVI is even better, but to be honest I can't tell a difference in quality between DVI and VGA. Except for the fact that Dual-link DVI supports a higher resolution then VGA can handle.

Although...I did notice noise once when I was using VGA, but I don't know if it was because it was VGA, or if it was because of something else. But either way, that is the ONLY time I've ever seen noise while using VGA.


Scanning is the process of moving the electron beam horizontally/vertically across the screen. The term is the same if you are displaying an interlaced or progressive image. The difference with progressive is that the electron beam needs to be scanned across the screen at a faster frequency. Not all CRTs are capable of this. JeepGuy, what you mean by not all pixels are not displayed at once is defined as interlaced, EVEN and ODD lines are scanned separately.


But are there any HD TVs that use a progressive scanning mode?

[noxqzs]

But are there any HD TVs that use a progressive scanning mode?

Sony Wega XBR32 and 40
NEC
Toshiba

a few others also

all do 720p and are CRT tubes.

When I meant 5 plugs earlier. I specified BNC. I hope you didn't mistake it for 5 VGA cables. BNC are smaller coaxial cables basically.

[soundfx4]

Sony Wega XBR32 and 40
NEC
Toshiba

a few others also

all do 720p and are CRT tubes.

When I meant 5 plugs earlier. I specified BNC. I hope you didn't mistake it for 5 VGA cables. BNC are smaller coaxial cables basically.


oh, no, I know what BNC jacks are. They use to use them for coax networks. I just can't understand why they would need to take the RGB and the H-V sync signals and put them in separate cables. Does it really make that big of a difference? I guess it's not so surprising now that I think about it, but still it seams unnecessary.

Btw, thanks for the names of those TVs because I will be wanting a progressive scan HD CRT TV. Btw, are there any 1080i CRT TVs that you know of? Or even better, are there any 1080p CRT TVs?

[greenmaji]

I was looking a while back and saw a CRT that did 720p and or 1080i native; Intrested in hearing if there are some 1080p ones, though its a tough res for even the newest tech.

[soundfx4]

I was looking a while back and saw a CRT that did 720p and or 1080i native; Intrested in hearing if there are some 1080p ones, though its a tough res for even the newest tech.

definitely, but if a CRT HD TV could do 1080p then it would be the best display for me. Aside from the fact that it will weigh a ton...that is the only downside. :p which is why if I'm going to get CRT display I want the best one I can find, because it is going to be a HUDGE pain to install, so it had better give me the best possible image quality for low, and high resolution broadcasts.

[dlavrenz]

How big is this TV going to be?

I have 2 crt's in my house, one rear projection lcd, one panel lcd and an lcd projector. I have noticed all of my lcd's have better "picture" then my crt's. My projecor just isn't as bright but that is the price you pay for a 120 in. screen :thup:

CRT's are fading fast because they are old technology and the newer better lcd and dlp is replacing it. At this point in time, I would never buy a CRT big screen. For a smaller TV, CRT is fine as it is cheaper.

[jeepguy_1980]

definitely, but if a CRT HD TV could do 1080p then it would be the best display for me. Aside from the fact that it will weigh a ton...that is the only downside. :p which is why if I'm going to get CRT display I want the best one I can find, because it is going to be a HUDGE pain to install, so it had better give me the best possible image quality for low, and high resolution broadcasts.


i wont get back into arguing about picture quality, b/c I can't. But I do know that to get the best PQ from a CRT you will need a professional calibration after it has been installed in your house. They are required on a semi-regular basis.

[JCLW]

Don't forget that large CRTs can use a lot of power, and dump a lot of heat into your house.

Dell makes some nice LCD TVs.

[soundfx4]

Evil! You are all evil! :beer: filling my head with such confusion! :D Low res images may not be a concern in 5 years, but right now it is. I don't understand, CRTs have always had the best quality image, and everyone always said so. Why is it that all of a sudden everyone seams to have changed their mind? Is it because LCD and DLP technologies have evolved so much that their picture is finally better? Because I know that most geeks (or at least it used to be this way) hated CRTs because of their weight, but loved them because of their superior picture quality. What is going on here? :bang head:

[Chinthor]

Here's the dl on the rise of LCD, DLP, LCOS and all their little offspring:

They have been improving in quality at a steady rate, even as prices have begun to fall (or larger and larger sizes fail to require selling one's kidneys.)

Bottom line, for now, is CRT's have the brightest glow and best black level. usually best contrast as well. Yes they weigh a ton. Yes, if you look close, they have the screen door effect from spacing between the pixels. Not so bad in 720 HD sets, but still there. Have yet to see a 1080 CRT with my own eyes to check that.

I'll only say this once. The only screen to beat a CRT in brightness and contrast is plasma. Great. But they also happen to be the worst of all possible buys. Half of the lowest lifespan found in other tech. Heat concerns. Burn in. Screen door. Hellacious price (though getting better). 'Nough said.

Modern LCD screens (single panel, not any form of projection) reached 1080+ resolutions some time ago, and are now falling in price. They also now have contrast ratios to compete, but not defeat a CRT, and higher refresh rates (read response time) Overall brightness is also getting better. However, you will only find really impressive stats in computer LCD monitors 24" and under, or spend an ungodly amount for the same qualities on a 37"+ LCD tv from the high-end sources like Toshiba, Hitachi, and Sony. Since that seems to be your plan anyway, I'd say go for it.

If you want extremely large size, I hear Sony has a 60" LCD panel tv available. Stats unknown, but may be worth looking into.

For projection sets, (based on LCD or DLP tech) they only differ in the cost of maintenance (~$100 projection bulbs and LED units, to up to $350 depending on tech. average life, 10k hours of use) , and the black levels/contrast they can achieve. Will have to double check on wich ones trade cost/longevity for better contrast, can't remember tonight. Those two will be the only drawback compared to a CRT (and CRT's bigger than 46" are not available in any resolution.) The pictures on these have no screen door effect all and at times you are hard pressed to even make out pixels with your nose to the screen. Especially after knowing how the picture is produced, you'll swear it is painted on the screen with lasers. Again, the best and highest resolution models come from Toshiba, Sony, Hitachi. Panasonic also has a few nice models out, but I am unsure if any support 1080p.

While computer monitors are progressive, and your PC signal is formatted as such, you will still be at the mercy of the native format of other signals. DVD, VCR, antenna, cable, satellite. For the fixed resolution issue, perhaps run all such lower-rez signals through a tuner card in your PC. It will then be fed to the monitor in progressive mode, high res, without loosing much or any quality in the transfer. Text should still be very readable (considering the size of the screen)

Guess that's all. Check between wikipedia and howitworks for better details. Cheers.

[soundfx4]

Here's the dl on the rise of LCD, DLP, LCOS and all their little offspring:

They have been improving in quality at a steady rate, even as prices have begun to fall (or larger and larger sizes fail to require selling one's kidneys.)

Bottom line, for now, is CRT's have the brightest glow and best black level. usually best contrast as well. Yes they weigh a ton. Yes, if you look close, they have the screen door effect from spacing between the pixels. Not so bad in 720 HD sets, but still there. Have yet to see a 1080 CRT with my own eyes to check that.

I'll only say this once. The only screen to beat a CRT in brightness and contrast is plasma. Great. But they also happen to be the worst of all possible buys. Half of the lowest lifespan found in other tech. Heat concerns. Burn in. Screen door. Hellacious price (though getting better). 'Nough said.

Modern LCD screens (single panel, not any form of projection) reached 1080+ resolutions some time ago, and are now falling in price. They also now have contrast ratios to compete, but not defeat a CRT, and higher refresh rates (read response time) Overall brightness is also getting better. However, you will only find really impressive stats in computer LCD monitors 24" and under, or spend an ungodly amount for the same qualities on a 37"+ LCD tv from the high-end sources like Toshiba, Hitachi, and Sony. Since that seems to be your plan anyway, I'd say go for it.

If you want extremely large size, I hear Sony has a 60" LCD panel tv available. Stats unknown, but may be worth looking into.

For projection sets, (based on LCD or DLP tech) they only differ in the cost of maintenance (~$100 projection bulbs and LED units, to up to $350 depending on tech. average life, 10k hours of use) , and the black levels/contrast they can achieve. Will have to double check on wich ones trade cost/longevity for better contrast, can't remember tonight. Those two will be the only drawback compared to a CRT (and CRT's bigger than 46" are not available in any resolution.) The pictures on these have no screen door effect all and at times you are hard pressed to even make out pixels with your nose to the screen. Especially after knowing how the picture is produced, you'll swear it is painted on the screen with lasers. Again, the best and highest resolution models come from Toshiba, Sony, Hitachi. Panasonic also has a few nice models out, but I am unsure if any support 1080p.

While computer monitors are progressive, and your PC signal is formatted as such, you will still be at the mercy of the native format of other signals. DVD, VCR, antenna, cable, satellite. For the fixed resolution issue, perhaps run all such lower-rez signals through a tuner card in your PC. It will then be fed to the monitor in progressive mode, high res, without loosing much or any quality in the transfer. Text should still be very readable (considering the size of the screen)

Guess that's all. Check between wikipedia and howitworks for better details. Cheers.

I don't remember saying I was planning on spending an ungodly amount of money :beer: I really don't remember, did I say that? lol

anyway, welcome to the forums! Your post was very informative and helpful :) Although it looks like I may have less time then I thought, my current TV just went out completely last night and wouldn't turn back on until I left it alone for an hour or so.

Thanks again for the information you have provided.

[Chinthor]

Anytime. Glad I could help. One favor to ask. While I have kept up on the pros and cons of sets, the electronic nitty-gritty has passed me by. If you can, check my other thread. Need help actually stripping and re-wiring a small LCD pannel. Don't know where to even start in looking for info and tech specs:confused: .

Catch you guys later. Cheers.

[four4875]

http://www.web-ee.com/Electronic-Projects/projects/test_pat/index.shtml

build the signal generator.

i googled "video test pattern generator" and found a few different things, that looks like a bunch of work but would probably be the cheapest option youd have :-/

found one for $650
http://www.hallresearch.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=HOS&Product_Code=DVC-3&Category_Code=TestPat

[soundfx4]

Anytime. Glad I could help. One favor to ask. While I have kept up on the pros and cons of sets, the electronic nitty-gritty has passed me by. If you can, check my other thread. Need help actually stripping and re-wiring a small LCD pannel. Don't know where to even start in looking for info and tech specs:confused: .

Catch you guys later. Cheers.


Unfortunately I probably won't be able help you with that. That stuff goes over my head. I'll check it out anyway just because there is a very very slight chance that I MAY be able to assist you, but there are many people here that are much more knowledgeable about that then I am.

[soundfx4]

http://www.web-ee.com/Electronic-Projects/projects/test_pat/index.shtml

build the signal generator.

i googled "video test pattern generator" and found a few different things, that looks like a bunch of work but would probably be the cheapest option youd have :-/

found one for $650
http://www.hallresearch.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=HOS&Product_Code=DVC-3&Category_Code=TestPat


I think I'll try building one :D I knew they were expensive, and I knew they cost that much, but it still ****es me off. Those things can't possibly cost anywhere near that much to make unless...licensing fees for different encoding technologies used inside it? :confused:

Otherwise they are just ripping people off. (sigh) :(

[soundfx4]

This is an old thread but I thought I would give an update on what I ended up doing and, in fact, just did tonight.


I went down to sears to check out a supposed 1080i CRT display and with me I took my xbox...installed on this xbox is avalaunch and it has a file manager that displays very small text that can ONLY be read at 1080. I hooked it up to the store display and sure enough it was fuzzy...I was disappointed of course, but this lead to me buying a 40" 1080p LCD display. Quite frankly I don't care about low resolutions anymore, and I'm sure my Wii will look fine on it if I stand back far enough, but the thing with this TV is that it's big enough that I actually CAN stand back far enough to where it will look good.


So the TV is ordered and will be here Wednesday and I'm a little sick that I spent as much money on it as I did : \ but once my TV gets here on Wednesday I should feel much better, especially if I'm happy with it.


sorry for bringing such an old thread back to life lol :beer: