With DSO in the offing (middle of next year), the question will arise
as to whether I dump our (cheap) analogue CRT Matsui TV and get a good
freeview-enabled LCD TV, or just get a set-top box for the Matsui.
(ATM I can't experiment with a STB because we don't get a digital
signal here and won't until next June).

Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
enlighten me?

-- 
 
Chris

E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net

In message , Chris Hogg 
 wrote
>With DSO in the offing (middle of next year), the question will arise
>as to whether I dump our (cheap) analogue CRT Matsui TV and get a good
>freeview-enabled LCD TV, or just get a set-top box for the Matsui.
>(ATM I can't experiment with a STB because we don't get a digital
>signal here and won't until next June).
>
>Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
>screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
>have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
>enlighten me?
>

A CRT TV should give you a better picture quality than a LCD TV but 
picture quality isn't necessarily the reason why people buy LCD TVs.

How sure are you that when you get a digital signal you are not still in 
a marginal area?  Your choice for digital may have to be via satellite, 
either subscription service or 'Free to Air' or Freesat. A TV with an 
inbuilt Freeview tuner may not be the best option.

-- 
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

> Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
> screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
> have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
> enlighten me?

Most people would agree that a really good CRT - correctly set up - looks 
better than an LCD or plasma.

HOWEVER - it is very often not the case in real life.  CRT's can go out of 
focus; it is very challenging indeed to achieve perfect beam focus across 
the entire screen.  The electronics are sophisticated and it is quite common 
for a TV to gradually drift out of focus as the years pass.

Secondly, convergence.  Perfect convergence across the entire screen is, 
again, immensely challenging to achieve, and it is very common for a CRT TV 
to show convergence errors after some time in service.

The great thing about LCD and plasma is that you don't need to worry about 
any of these.

On the other hand, most would agree that an LCD picture is less rich and 
dynamic than a CRT picture, and in particular they are still prone to 
"glowing" blacks.

They've made great strides in this area, but LCDs show blacks by blocking 
off the light from the backlight.  There is always some light leakage, hence 
the glowing greys.  A few manufacturers have introduced hacks by varying the 
intensity of the backlight dynamically, but the bottom line is, it's an 
inherent weakness in the technology.

Plasma avoids this problem, but has it's own shortcomings.  They use a lot 
of energy, for one thing.  The other issue is that if you don't sit well 
back you can clearly see the pixel 'mesh'.

In summary, then: most people would agree that a perfectly set up CRT gives 
a better picture than an LCD or plasma.  But most CRT's are running with 
focus and convergence problems, which make the picture look fuzzy compared 
with an LCD or plasma.

Don't think for a moment that LCDs and plasma took over from CRT because 
they are better!  They took over for three good reasons:

1/ Cheaper.  After decades of manufacture, there is no more room for driving 
down the manufacturing costs of CRTs, and frankly they are expensive to 
make.  LCDs and plasma screens are also expensive to make, but both offer 
great potential for ongoing reductions in manufacturing costs.  That means 
more profit for Sony, et al.

2/ Bigger.  It is a real challenge to make a CRT work satisfactorily above 
about 36".  There is no inherent limitation in the size of LCDs and plasma 
screens, and the demand for high quality, large screens meant a move away 
from CRT technology was required.

3/ Flat.  Most people prefer the dead flat viewing screen an LCD or plasma 
can offer.  More importantly, CRTs are extremely deep compared with LCD and 
plasma, especially in the larger sizes.  Bulky TVs were becoming less 
acceptable to owners.

I would compare the picture on your particular TV with those you see in the 
shops, and then decide if you want to switch.  There's certainly no rush: 
LCD and plasma are improving all the time, and OLED screens will be coming 
along in the next few years.

SteveT

Steve Thackery wrote:

[snip good well made points]

I would add that a major problem (challenge :-) ) with any flat panel 
display, LCD, Plasma, or OLED, is that of temporal resolution. TV is, 
and will probably remain in the main part interlaced. Flat panel 
displays de-interlace the signal, so that it can be displayed 
progressively. This plays havoc with moving objects, in particular fast 
moving scrolling credits which are unreadable in many cases.

When looking a flat panel displays, concentrate on their ability to 
render fast moving objects well.

Alan  wrote:

: A CRT TV should give you a better picture quality than a LCD TV but 
: picture quality isn't necessarily the reason why people buy LCD TVs.

It depends what you mean by "picture quality" - CRT TVs do not have the
resolution for HD-TV (as sold in this country!)

Having said that I agree that people buy LCD and Plasma TVs also to
reclaim room space and to go to higher screen sizes.

Steve Thackery wrote:

<< the most helpful post I've seen on USENET in ages >>

> SteveT


Just saying "nice work"

   BugBear

In message , Steve Thackery 
 wrote
>> Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
>> screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
>> have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
>> enlighten me?
>
>Most people would agree that a really good CRT - correctly set up - 
>looks better than an LCD or plasma.
>
>HOWEVER - it is very often not the case in real life.  CRT's can go out 
of focus;

>Secondly, convergence.

>The great thing about LCD and plasma is that you don't need to worry 
>about any of these.

Sadly, 99.9 percent of the general public would not notice if the focus 
or convergence was slightly out :)


-- 
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

In article , Alan
 scribeth thus
>In message , Steve Thackery 
> wrote
>>> Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
>>> screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
>>> have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
>>> enlighten me?
>>
>>Most people would agree that a really good CRT - correctly set up - 
>>looks better than an LCD or plasma.
>>
>>HOWEVER - it is very often not the case in real life.  CRT's can go out 
>of focus;
>
>>Secondly, convergence.
>
>>The great thing about LCD and plasma is that you don't need to worry 
>>about any of these.
>
>Sadly, 99.9 percent of the general public would not notice if the focus 
>or convergence was slightly out :)
>
>

Well its fine on our old B&O and no doubt it will stay that way for some
time yet.

The main problem is that the digital pix aren't as good as the existing
analogue ones but then again sometimes the analogue pix we see nowadays
aren't as good either ..them having been nadgered before transmission..

So I'd hang onto your old TV for as long as you like assuming its got a
SCART socket and most all have you can always hang a external
terrestrial TV box on when conversion does take place or go freesat at
anytime...


-- 
Tony Sayer

In message , Alan 
 writes
>
>Sadly, 99.9 percent of the general public would not notice if the focus 
>or convergence was slightly out :)
>
>
If that's true, then it doesn't matter.
-- 
Ian

In article ,
   Chris Hogg  wrote:
> Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
> screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
> have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
> enlighten me?

If you mean resolution as in the subject then yes a decent LCD is likely
to have better resolution than a cheap CRT.

-- 
 

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <g7h82a$8of$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Brian McIlwrath wrote:
> : A CRT TV should give you a better picture quality than a LCD TV but 
> : picture quality isn't necessarily the reason why people buy LCD TVs.
> 
> It depends what you mean by "picture quality" - CRT TVs do not have the
> resolution for HD-TV

They had them about 25 years ago at IBC.

>(as sold in this country!)

Of course. The usual story - "We could but we don't".

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:58:25 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
 wrote:

[snip loads of good stuff]

I think you've covered everything except geometry. Most CRTs have
noticeable geometry problems, and cheap ones tend to be appalling.

My last CRT was a low-end Toshiba. Tall buildings would go all
wibbly-wobbly as the camera panned past them. On static shots, the
background would bend and sway as things moved around in the
foreground...

The low-end Samsung LCD I replaced it with (For its thinness) has some
pretty unnerving artifacts too of course. I particularly like the way
that things which ought to be rigidly fixed together, appear to move
independently. Walls and ceilings on interior shots for example, or
noses and eyes on full-face closeups. I haven't yet worked out if this
is down to the TV, or if it's an MPEG artifact. I'm sure I never
noticed it on DTT on the CRT though.

Cheers,

Colin.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <g7h82a$8of$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Brian McIlwrath wrote:
>> : A CRT TV should give you a better picture quality than a LCD TV but 
>> : picture quality isn't necessarily the reason why people buy LCD TVs.
>>
>> It depends what you mean by "picture quality" - CRT TVs do not have the
>> resolution for HD-TV
> 
> They had them about 25 years ago at IBC.

And they'll still have them at this year's too !


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

> Just saying "nice work"

Thank you!  <blush>

SteveT

"Chris Hogg"  wrote in message 
news:6dun94t8rsbaq9d57trscf64r9ei7oj70p@4ax.com...
> With DSO in the offing (middle of next year), the question will arise
> as to whether I dump our (cheap) analogue CRT Matsui TV and get a good
> freeview-enabled LCD TV, or just get a set-top box for the Matsui.
> (ATM I can't experiment with a STB because we don't get a digital
> signal here and won't until next June).
>
> Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
> screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
> have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
> enlighten me?




the main reason someone would think the picture was worse is due to size.
if there was a 65 inch crt tv available, SD channels would look strange on 
that too.
people expect big screen lcd and plasma to somehow look as clear as their 28 
inch crt.



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 
message news:VA.0000049c.020e2b10@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...


>> It depends what you mean by "picture quality" - CRT TVs do not have the
>> resolution for HD-TV
>
> They had them about 25 years ago at IBC.
>
>>(as sold in this country!)
>
> Of course. The usual story - "We could but we don't".




why would they make them? - the public certainly wouldn't buy them.



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:51:08 +0100, Chris Hogg  wrote:

>Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
>screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
>have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
>enlighten me?

As you have a low end CRT, a decent LCD would be a huge improvement. I
dropped CRT's 2 years ago and wouldn't dream of going back.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

The dog from that film you saw wrote:

> 
> why would they make them? - the public certainly wouldn't buy them.

There's market manipulation going on, I was in Kazakhstan in June.

Browsing in their equivalent to Comet/Currys only half the TVs on sale were 
LCD/Plasma, and they were the same models seen here (about the same price too).
The other half were CRTs. Almost all 4:3, and sizes up to 36inch. 'Quality 
brands' Sony, Panny, etc.

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6g3d4eFe2r5rU1@mid.individual.net...
> The dog from that film you saw wrote:
>
>>
>> why would they make them? - the public certainly wouldn't buy them.
>
> There's market manipulation going on, I was in Kazakhstan in June.
>
> Browsing in their equivalent to Comet/Currys only half the TVs on sale 
> were LCD/Plasma, and they were the same models seen here (about the same 
> price too).
> The other half were CRTs. Almost all 4:3, and sizes up to 36inch. 'Quality 
> brands' Sony, Panny, etc.
>




you really think if half the tvs on sale in uk shops were still CRT they 
would continue to sell?
you can buy one still in the uk if you want - but it's no coincidence they 
are the cheap ones.



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

"Andrew"  wrote in message 
news:ocuo94lbrf10oi2behskaaugi49ovglad9@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:51:08 +0100, Chris Hogg  wrote:
>
>>Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
>>screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
>>have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
>>enlighten me?
>
> As you have a low end CRT, a decent LCD would be a huge improvement. I
> dropped CRT's 2 years ago and wouldn't dream of going back.





my last CRT was a loewe aconda - a top of the range model.
it does look nice but it just seems soft somehow compared to my lcd.
maybe it's just what you're used to.



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

The dog from that film you saw wrote:
> 
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:6g3d4eFe2r5rU1@mid.individual.net...
>> The dog from that film you saw wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> why would they make them? - the public certainly wouldn't buy them.
>>
>> There's market manipulation going on, I was in Kazakhstan in June.
>>
>> Browsing in their equivalent to Comet/Currys only half the TVs on sale 
>> were LCD/Plasma, and they were the same models seen here (about the 
>> same price too).
>> The other half were CRTs. Almost all 4:3, and sizes up to 36inch. 
>> 'Quality brands' Sony, Panny, etc.

> you really think if half the tvs on sale in uk shops were still CRT they 
> would continue to sell?

Not any more no. People are buying large screen flat panels because they're 
the latest 'must have' fashion item. Living rooms haven't suddenly doubled in 
size, so why have the screen sizes ? There's no point at all having a 40 inch 
screen unless you're going to double your viewing distance, or go HD.
An alarming number of people who are actually equipped with HD, are apparently 
only connecting their Sky HD boxes via Scart, so they're not even watching HD 
when they could be !  Shouldn't come as any surprise, look at what's been 
going on with 16:9 TV sets being fed with 4:3 CCO and then having the image 
stretched to fill the screen for the last 10 years.

Don't get me wrong, I've got a 40 inch LCD, but I bought it because I've also 
got a PS3 (i.e BluRay player) and a Sky HD box. I'm well aware of the zero 
market for CRT. I had to give away my 32inch CRT.



-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6g3m1eFe6pr9U1@mid.individual.net...
> The dog from that film you saw wrote:
>>
>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:6g3d4eFe2r5rU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> The dog from that film you saw wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> why would they make them? - the public certainly wouldn't buy them.
>>>
>>> There's market manipulation going on, I was in Kazakhstan in June.
>>>
>>> Browsing in their equivalent to Comet/Currys only half the TVs on sale 
>>> were LCD/Plasma, and they were the same models seen here (about the same 
>>> price too).
>>> The other half were CRTs. Almost all 4:3, and sizes up to 36inch. 
>>> 'Quality brands' Sony, Panny, etc.
>
>> you really think if half the tvs on sale in uk shops were still CRT they 
>> would continue to sell?
>
> Not any more no. People are buying large screen flat panels because 
> they're the latest 'must have' fashion item. Living rooms haven't suddenly 
> doubled in size, so why have the screen sizes ? There's no point at all 
> having a 40 inch screen unless you're going to double your viewing 
> distance, or go HD.
> An alarming number of people who are actually equipped with HD, are 
> apparently only connecting their Sky HD boxes via Scart, so they're not 
> even watching HD when they could be !  Shouldn't come as any surprise, 
> look at what's been going on with 16:9 TV sets being fed with 4:3 CCO and 
> then having the image stretched to fill the screen for the last 10 years.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I've got a 40 inch LCD, but I bought it because I've 
> also got a PS3 (i.e BluRay player) and a Sky HD box. I'm well aware of the 
> zero market for CRT. I had to give away my 32inch CRT.

Only a few months ago I bought an excellent 36inch Toshiba (with 100Hz, 
digital surround, etc) for under £200 second-hand, it cost over £1600 new 
3-4 years ago. I could've bought a new but very sh*t LCD for a little more 
than that. Very glad I didn't, but I have the space. I have no desire to pay 
the subscription for HD or get Freesat until 90% of programs are broadcast 
in HD and it is the defacto standard. Hopefully by then the latest flat 
panel TVs will be on a par with today's (or should I say yesterday's) CRTs 
at a reasonable price point.

As with cameras resolution alone does not equal  image quality.

Z

In article , The dog from that film you 
saw wrote:
> >> It depends what you mean by "picture quality" - CRT TVs do not have the
> >> resolution for HD-TV
> >
> > They had them about 25 years ago at IBC.
> >
> >>(as sold in this country!)
> >
> > Of course. The usual story - "We could but we don't".
> 
> why would they make them? - the public certainly wouldn't buy them.

The public will apparently buy what they are told to want, or what they are 
told is fashionable, or in some cases what they are told is superior simply 
because it is old. There isn't usually a problem making the public want 
whatever it is most profitable to sell.

Some members of the public like the idea of messing about with gramophone 
turntables and a recording medium that must be handled with surgical care, 
even though we have CDs and solid state media that are less bother.

And some extol the virtues of thermionic valve amplifiers which are large, 
inefficient, microphonic, and deteriorate in performance as the valves age.

Why some people even like log fires, vintage cars, steam engines, mechanical 
typewriters and many other things that have better modern equivalents. I'm 
sure it would only take the right kind of marketing to make people believe 
in the superior performance of cathode ray tubes. I predict a revival in a 
few years time - after everyone has bought flat screens of course.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article , Colin Stamp 
wrote:
> I think you've covered everything except geometry. Most CRTs have
> noticeable geometry problems, and cheap ones tend to be appalling.

Agreed, though for a great deal of typical television material, it 
needn't be very noticeable. TV pictures tend to be moving, and not to be 
dominated by static straight lines as in computer programs.
 
> My last CRT was a low-end Toshiba. Tall buildings would go all
> wibbly-wobbly as the camera panned past them. On static shots, the
> background would bend and sway as things moved around in the
> foreground...

This can often be helped simply by backing off the contrast a little. 
Many people have their TV sets in brightly lit areas and overdrive them 
to try and compete with daylight.
 
> The low-end Samsung LCD I replaced it with (For its thinness) has some
> pretty unnerving artifacts too of course. I particularly like the way
> that things which ought to be rigidly fixed together, appear to move
> independently. Walls and ceilings on interior shots for example, or
> noses and eyes on full-face closeups. I haven't yet worked out if this
> is down to the TV, or if it's an MPEG artifact. I'm sure I never
> noticed it on DTT on the CRT though.

I've been watching DTT on a CRT display for several years, and the 
effect you describe is noticeable. It seems to be an effect of too much 
bit-rate reduction in the digital transmission system. I think the 
system must decide how much compresion to give various picture areas 
based partly on brightness, because a particularly annoying 
manifestation is when someone's face is side-lit, and they move 
slightly. The two parts of the person's face that are at different 
brightness levels are probably being given different amounts of 
processing, thereby ending up with different amounts of delay, so when 
the person moves their face, one part lags behind the other. As this 
deficiency is inherent in the system, there's probably no cure, so we're 
stuck with it forever, or at leat until one of our great-grandchildren 
invents analogue television and the world thinks it's new.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Yes, I can just see it happening!
:-)

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:04:00 +0100, Roderick Stewart
 wrote:

[snip a lot of stuff that is SO true]

> I predict a revival in a 
> few years time - after everyone has bought flat screens of course.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:58:25 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
 wrote:

> Most people would agree that a really good CRT - correctly set up - looks 
> better than an LCD or plasma.

These days I would question 'most people'.

Also it's a biased statement based on an unequal comparison, 'really
good' one against unqualified, and therefore run of the mill, other.

However, the rest of the post is pretty fair ..

> On the other hand, most would agree that an LCD picture is less rich and 
> dynamic than a CRT picture

Totally disagree.

> and in particular they are still prone to 
> "glowing" blacks.
> 
> They've made great strides in this area, but LCDs show blacks by blocking 
> off the light from the backlight.  There is always some light leakage, hence 
> the glowing greys.  A few manufacturers have introduced hacks by varying the 
> intensity of the backlight dynamically, but the bottom line is, it's an 
> inherent weakness in the technology.

Yes this true, but to view dark scenes the brightness on the average
CRT has to adjusted as well, so it's six of one and half a dozen of
the other.
 
> In summary, then: most people would agree that a perfectly set up CRT gives 
> a better picture than an LCD or plasma.

No, as above.

> 3/ Flat.  Most people prefer the dead flat viewing screen an LCD or plasma 
> can offer.

Yes this is a real plus.

> I would compare the picture on your particular TV with those you see in the 
> shops, and then decide if you want to switch.  There's certainly no rush: 
> LCD and plasma are improving all the time, and OLED screens will be coming 
> along in the next few years.

Good advice.

My own views have been often expressed in this ng, so I'll save on
column inches and just link.
	http://tinyurl.com/5srngy
... standing in for ...
http://www.cemh.eclipse.co.uk/JavaJive/AudioVisualTV/ChooseTV/ChooseTV.html

Also, AFIAA I am the only person to publish results of an attempt at
an impartial experimental comparison, albeit I'm the first to admit
that the results would be more useful if I'd had access to better
equipment than that available at my home.
	http://tinyurl.com/5ccryd
... standing in for ...
http://www.cemh.eclipse.co.uk/JavaJive/AudioVisualTV/CRTvsLCD/CRTvsLCD.html

AFAICT this is totally untrue on both my LCDs ...

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:13:35 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Flat panel 
> displays de-interlace the signal, so that it can be displayed 
> progressively.

Java Jive wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:13:35 +0100, Mark Carver
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Flat panel 
>> displays de-interlace the signal, so that it can be displayed 
>> progressively.

 > AFAICT this is totally untrue on both my LCDs ...


Really ?  Well, then they're the first models in the world not to. Perhaps you 
can let us all know their exact model numbers, so we can check your assertion ?


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Panasonics TX-15LT2, TX-22LT2

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:54:48 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> Really ?  Well, then they're the first models in the world not to. Perhaps you 
> can let us all know their exact model numbers, so we can check your assertion ?

Many thanks to all for a most interesting and helpful discussion.
Perhaps 'resolution' in my subject line would have been better as
'picture quality', but you all understood what I was after. 

We currently receive from the Praa Sands booster (10W, LOS about mile
away, and a satellite of the Redruth transmitter). Praa Sands is due
to 'go digital' during July next year, but we're only getting the PSBs
1, 2 and 3. It'll be quite enough for us. (see 'Half a Freeview for
you' http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051024 ). 

As I said in my OP, we have a cheap CRT TV which does have a few
imperfections, noticeably a slightly wavy edge to the screen (it's a
wide-screen TV, but as we only get an analogue signal, we compromise
and watch it on 14:9). I'll wait until next July and try it with an
STB to see what it looks like, before rushing out to get an LCD set.

-- 
 
Chris

E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net

I'd also be interested to hear your comments on ...
	http://tinyurl.com/5cfaaz
... standing in for ...
http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/?action=view¤t=LCDInterlace.png
... which I have just found.  It was photographed on the TX-22LT2
during the ancillary Artifacts Demo to the CRT vs LCD experiment, that
I linked elsewhere in the thread, though at the time this particular
pic was discarded in favour of one that showed the artifact I was
investigating better.  Thus the shooting conditions are as recorded
for the demo.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:38:38 +0100, Java Jive  wrote:

> Panasonics TX-15LT2, TX-22LT2
> 
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:54:48 +0100, Mark Carver
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > Really ?  Well, then they're the first models in the world not to. Perhaps you 
> > can let us all know their exact model numbers, so we can check your assertion ?

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> 
> I've been watching DTT on a CRT display for several years, and the 
> effect you describe is noticeable. It seems to be an effect of too much 
> bit-rate reduction in the digital transmission system. I think the 
> system must decide how much compresion to give various picture areas 
> based partly on brightness, because a particularly annoying 
> manifestation is when someone's face is side-lit, and they move 
> slightly. The two parts of the person's face that are at different 
> brightness levels are probably being given different amounts of 
> processing, thereby ending up with different amounts of delay, so when 
> the person moves their face, one part lags behind the other. As this 
> deficiency is inherent in the system, there's probably no cure, so we're 
> stuck with it forever, or at leat until one of our great-grandchildren 
> invents analogue television and the world thinks it's new.
> 
It's not inherent in MPEG, it's the CODEC design.  The CODEC is free to 
use the bits available to it to send any parts of the picture it feels 
are useful.  Typically it'll send the parts that have changed most - but 
what is "most" is a CODEC designer's nightmare.

Of course you could turn up the bitrate, so it doesn't have to decide. 
Or just use a newer standard, like MPEG4.

Andy

Java Jive wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:54:48 +0100, Mark Carver
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Really ?  Well, then they're the first models in the world not to. Perhaps you 
>> can let us all know their exact model numbers, so we can check your assertion ?

 > Panasonics TX-15LT2, TX-22LT2


Right, I've just had a very interesting chat with a guru within my 
company who deals with such matters.

The short answer is that no one knows for sure how the processing is 
performed. You'd have to ask each individual manufacturer how they do 
it. You're unlikely to receive answers, because just as is the case with 
my company, the information is company confidential. Indeed I can't even 
find out how our consumer monitors do it, because I'm from the broadcast 
division.

One thing is certain however, he has witnessed tests of many different 
types of screen all being fed with exactly the same signal. There are 
huge differences with temporal resolution, so the processing techniques 
are very different from mfr to mfr.

Apologies for supplying dodgy information in previous posts.

Thanks for clarifying that to the extent that you were able, Mark.

BTW, you were planning to do some CRT /LCD tests of your own at one
time, using rather more pro equipment than I can lay my hands on.  Did
you not have time or something?  I would have been interested in the
results ...

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:17:23 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> Right, I've just had a very interesting chat with a guru within my 
> company who deals with such matters.

[snip]

> Apologies for supplying dodgy information in previous posts.

Java Jive wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying that to the extent that you were able, Mark.
> 
> BTW, you were planning to do some CRT /LCD tests of your own at one
> time, using rather more pro equipment than I can lay my hands on.  Did
> you not have time or something?  I would have been interested in the
> results ...

I did, and there were artefacts on the LCDs not evident on the CRTs, 
interestingly even with the source camera set to progressive. However, 
as predicted, I couldn't capture the effects in any recordable form. In 
other words I think it's something that needs to be witnessed in 'real 
life'.

Yes, my attempts tested both the equipment, my methodology, and not
least my patience to the utmost to get anything useable at all!

Pity, published results from pro equipment might have moved things
forward significantly.

When I first saw this thread, my heart sank, thinking: "Here we go
again!", but I thought it a very reasonable discussion this time.

I don't know if I've just finally managed to plonk them all, or
perhaps my limited experimental offering has actually accomplished
something in cleaning up the debate, but I saw no stupid posts of the
"All LCDs are crap! All CRTs are perfect!" type that used to be so
common.

Or, human nature being what it is, will the above paragraph generate a
flood of them in response.  Oh gawd, I hope not ...

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:35:47 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> I did, and there were artefacts on the LCDs not evident on the CRTs, 
> interestingly even with the source camera set to progressive. However, 
> as predicted, I couldn't capture the effects in any recordable form.

"Chris Hogg"  wrote in message 
news:6dun94t8rsbaq9d57trscf64r9ei7oj70p@4ax.com...
> With DSO in the offing (middle of next year), the question will arise
> as to whether I dump our (cheap) analogue CRT Matsui TV and get a good
> freeview-enabled LCD TV, or just get a set-top box for the Matsui.
> (ATM I can't experiment with a STB because we don't get a digital
> signal here and won't until next June).
>
> Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
> screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
> have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
> enlighten me?
>
> -- 
>
> Chris
>
> E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net

I am sitting in front of a CRT easily capable of 1600x1200*, however most 
domestic TV's (and certainly a down market Matsui) are probably quite low 
resolution with quite large phosphor dots - giving perhaps 768 x 576 of you 
are lucky.

OTOH a decent 37" or 42" LCD screen can have true 1920x1050 resolution, with 
every pixel individually correct in position, intensity and fairly good on 
colour.

CRT's run into problems as they scale up - a 36" widescreen weighed ~80kg 
IIRC and goodness knows how much a huge 39 to 42 inch 4:3 set I once saw 
weighed (or cost!).

The screen has to be curved (on the outside or the inside) and they can't be 
abbutted in multi displays.




* it will display 2048x1536, but not in my view truly at that definition due 
to aperture grill limitations.

Just to put in my somewhat irrelevant twopennorth, I was in Trafalgar Square 
earlier today and the big screen showing the Olympics is fantastic, even in 
broad daylight.

Bill

In article ,
   Bill Wright  wrote:

> Just to put in my somewhat irrelevant twopennorth, I was in Trafalgar Square 
> earlier today and the big screen showing the Olympics is fantastic, even in 
> broad daylight.

Do you remember, many, many years ago, that bloke 
who directed some workmen standing around Picadilly 
to dig up the road.  Before they were stopped, they 
had this enormous hole... 

Well ..with some ladders, a screwdriver and your 
authoritative expertise...   *;'))

;))

Bill ZFC

-- 
Adoption  InterLink  UK with  -=-         http://www.billsimpson.com/
Domain Host Orpheus Internet  -=-  http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/

The dog from that film you saw wrote:
> 
> "Andrew"  wrote in message 
> news:ocuo94lbrf10oi2behskaaugi49ovglad9@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:51:08 +0100, Chris Hogg  wrote:
>>
>>> Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
>>> screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
>>> have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
>>> enlighten me?
>>
>> As you have a low end CRT, a decent LCD would be a huge improvement. I
>> dropped CRT's 2 years ago and wouldn't dream of going back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my last CRT was a loewe aconda - a top of the range model.
> it does look nice but it just seems soft somehow compared to my lcd.
> maybe it's just what you're used to.
> 
> 
> 

I looked at the Loewe CRTs when buying my LCD.  I was comparing to my 
Sony CRT feed by STB RGB.  The Loewe CRT looked just like the LCD with 
lots of PAL artifacts, smearing, shadow etc when the Sony was pixel 
perfect.  They seem to use the same crap digital processing as used by 
the LCD, ie convert to Pal then display convert.  Unfortunately many 
other CRTs also did this too, losing all the benefits of RGB, but 
apparently reduces complains from people who want to adjust the 'colour' 
and can't do it on pure RGB.

At the time I thought the Loewe LCD was the best in class, but all where 
dissappoing due to the display conversion (Interlace to progressive and 
scaling), which is pretty similar to the problems intoduced by Pal. 
Ironic that just as we eliminated Pal by DTV STB-RGB TV that we 
introduce a new way of messing up the picture.

Incidently one of the biggest benefits of HDTV is the lack of scaling 
ans sometimes the lack on interlace conversion.  Of course it can be 
done properly (as with Pal), but the equipment costs £1000's.

In fairness the biggest attractor for LCD is the space saving, you 
suddently get a whole new bit of living room.  I was also watching a 25" 
4:3 and moved to 32" 16:9 so the height stayed about the same.  Don't 
get an oversized screen you will just notice more problems.

My Loewe now seems to be dieing after only about 5 years, there is 
greyness in the top of the picture (dust?) and the sound gets a 
background buzz sometimes.

--
Tony

Chris Hogg wrote:
> With DSO in the offing (middle of next year), the question will arise
> as to whether I dump our (cheap) analogue CRT Matsui TV and get a good
> freeview-enabled LCD TV, or just get a set-top box for the Matsui.
> (ATM I can't experiment with a STB because we don't get a digital
> signal here and won't until next June).
> 
> Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
> screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
> have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
> enlighten me?

We have a panasonic CRT IDTV which we bought about 8 years ago. The 
picture quality compared to friends LCDs is incredible. It is so good. 
The LCD TV we had in the holiday rental we had last week was pathetic. I 
messed with the settings as much as I could and it was acceptable. I 
wouldn't buy one yet though. I'll wait until our CRT breaks.
-- 
John

On 2008-08-13, John <john@ku.oc.evreseerf.nafah.reverse> wrote:
> Chris Hogg wrote:
>> With DSO in the offing (middle of next year), the question will arise
>> as to whether I dump our (cheap) analogue CRT Matsui TV and get a good
>> freeview-enabled LCD TV, or just get a set-top box for the Matsui.
>> (ATM I can't experiment with a STB because we don't get a digital
>> signal here and won't until next June).
>> 
>> Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
>> screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
>> have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
>> enlighten me?
>
> We have a panasonic CRT IDTV which we bought about 8 years ago. The 
> picture quality compared to friends LCDs is incredible. It is so good. 
> The LCD TV we had in the holiday rental we had last week was pathetic. I 
> messed with the settings as much as I could and it was acceptable. I 
> wouldn't buy one yet though. I'll wait until our CRT breaks.

My 14-year-old 34" Sony KV-S3412U is staying put [1] until it breaks
permanently [2] or the performance of LCDs on SD material gets good
enough. (Or until HD broadcasts become dominant).

However, at present the majority of my viewing is SD.  The 3412 makes a
very good job of SD so I know SD, for all of its rather variable defects,
can be displayed well enough.

Today's market for TVs remains fixated on HD quality.  Nevertheless I
do see ongoing improvements in SD material displayed on HD panels so I
expect a time will come soon to retire the 3412.  But not yet.

[1] At 79 kg, Newton's first law applies in spades, anyway.  There's a
    lot of glass in a 3412.

[2] As usual with the Sony AE-2 chassis I have had twice now to re-solder
    the line output chip leads to keep it going.

-- 
John Phillips

On 8 Aug., 09:51, Chris Hogg  wrote:
> With DSO in the offing (middle of next year), the question will arise
> as to whether I dump our (cheap) analogue CRT Matsui TV and get a good
> freeview-enabled LCD TV, or just get a set-top box for the Matsui.
> (ATM I can't experiment with a STB because we don't get a digital
> signal here and won't until next June).
>
If you wont get a DTT signal until next June and your CRT
is working and has a SCART, I will suggest you wait
until DSO and buy a £20 box and use that for the rest of 2009.
>
You will only get the 3 PSB  MUXes.
By November 2009 all the programs you get in June
will move to PSB-1 and PSB-2.
PSB-3 will then change to a new standard
'DVB-T2' and MPEG-4.
PSB-3 will broadcast 3 HDTV programs, but you
will need a new box or a new IDTV to receive these.
>
These may be a little more expensive in the
first few months, but chips for the new standard is not
expected to be much more expensive than the present
DVB-T chips.
>
Late 2009 or into 2010 will be a much better time
to change your TV if you can wait.
>
Lars :)
>
>Marc Carver wrote:
> LCD, Plasma, or OLED, is that of temporal resolution.
> TV is, and will probably remain in the main part interlaced.
>
For SDTV true, but the plan is that  HD should be broadcast
in  720p mode - ASAP - at least on Freeview.

wrote in message 
news:90f52aa0-9ce2-4e68-8c00-540fa03552ee@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>Marc Carver wrote:
Who he?

Bill

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:43:18 +0100, John
<john@ku.oc.evreseerf.nafah.reverse> wrote:

>We have a panasonic CRT IDTV which we bought about 8 years ago. The 
>picture quality compared to friends LCDs is incredible.
>...

Presumably this was a side by side comparison with them both set up for
optimum picture quality, i.e. all fancy settings in the respective menus
unchecked, brightness, contrast and colour set properly and on the same
programme material?

-- 
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

Bill Wright wrote:
>  wrote in message 
> news:90f52aa0-9ce2-4e68-8c00-540fa03552ee@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>> Marc Carver wrote:
> Who he?

Oh yes, it must be a babel fish plug-in in Lars' newsreader converting the 
correct English spelling of my name, to the continental variant.

How quaint.



-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

reslfj@gmail.com wrote:

>> Marc Carver wrote:
>> LCD, Plasma, or OLED, is that of temporal resolution.
>> TV is, and will probably remain in the main part interlaced.
>>
> For SDTV true, but the plan is that  HD should be broadcast
> in  720p mode - ASAP - at least on Freeview.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten that. Of course the pictures will have been down 
converted from an interlaced 1080 line production environment, which won't help.

Things will improve when 1080p studio production becomes the norm. Much easier 
to down convert to 1080i for D-Sat/cable *and* 720p for DTT.


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article ,
   John <john@ku.oc.evreseerf.nafah.reverse> wrote:
> We have a panasonic CRT IDTV which we bought about 8 years ago. The 
> picture quality compared to friends LCDs is incredible. It is so good. 
> The LCD TV we had in the holiday rental we had last week was pathetic. I 
> messed with the settings as much as I could and it was acceptable. I 
> wouldn't buy one yet though. I'll wait until our CRT breaks.

My next door neighbour has a CRT set (Sony widescreen) with a dreadful
picture.

Your point being?

-- 
*A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tony  wrote:

> I looked at the Loewe CRTs when buying my LCD.  I was comparing to my
> Sony CRT feed by STB RGB.  The Loewe CRT looked just like the LCD with
> lots of PAL artifacts, smearing, shadow etc when the Sony was pixel 
> perfect.  They seem to use the same crap digital processing as used by
> the LCD, ie convert to Pal then display convert.  Unfortunately many 
> other CRTs also did this too, losing all the benefits of RGB, but 
> apparently reduces complains from people who want to adjust the 'colour'
> and can't do it on pure RGB.

Well, you don't need to convert to PAL to make
brightness/contrast/saturation control possible - just to YUV and back,
a process which ought to be transparent. My 1990 JVC telly does that,
but of course the all-analogue chipsets it employs will be obsolete now.
Setmakers want all processing to be digital because digital is so much
better(!)

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

In article <1ilnul1.6djej133pq86N%
Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid>, Alan Pemberton wrote:
> Well, you don't need to convert to PAL to make
> brightness/contrast/saturation control possible - just to YUV and back,
> a process which ought to be transparent. My 1990 JVC telly does that,

Indeed. And tellys had brightness and contrast controls long before PAL 
was invented (even if contrast was sometimes actually RF gain), and both 
are possible with RGB signals too.

> but of course the all-analogue chipsets it employs will be obsolete now.
> Setmakers want all processing to be digital because digital is so much
> better(!)

Yep. Everything will be adjusted in little jumpy steps. Probably through 
an on-screen menu that obscures the picture you're trying to adjust.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Colin Stamp  wrote:

>[snip loads of good stuff]
>
>I think you've covered everything except geometry. Most CRTs have
>noticeable geometry problems, and cheap ones tend to be appalling.

True. My Panasonic has a compression (convergence?) issue on the far
right hand side. It's only really apparent during shots which pan
slowly on the horizontal plane.. infrequent, but it does bug me
occasionally. Furthermore the PSU isn't much cop, resulting in a
problem Jim Lesurf described :

> >My main gripes about the Panasonic as a display are that the image size
> >ands shape tend to alter dynamically with the image brightness pattern, 

The effect isn't that noticeable, but you can see the straightness of
the edges of the image fluctuate when overscan is removed. The
distortion depends on the material being shown. 

[Other minor geometry issues were easily remedied in the service menu]

All that said, I would NOT trade the set for a plasma or LCD, for
standard definition viewing. No way! In all other respects the set
blows away every flat panel I've seen. Colour accuracy, richness,
depth of field, blacks, response time, image clarity, etc. In fact I'm
on the hunt for a used Loewe which betters my Panasonic, to tide me
over for a year or three. I'll bite the flatscreen bullet when HD
competes with SD for my viewing.





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Colin Stamp wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:58:25 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
>  wrote:
> 
> [snip loads of good stuff]
> 
> I think you've covered everything except geometry. Most CRTs have
> noticeable geometry problems, and cheap ones tend to be appalling.
> 

I think you've got that wrong! The geometry is dependent on the 
electronics around it - the same CRT in two different receivers can show 
excellent results in one and diabolical results in the other. (And that 
is not just the geometry!)

Presumably the same is true of LCD and Plasma panels but I'm sticking 
with my (old fashioned) CRT display for the moment - I'll worry about 
flat screen devices and their performance when it bites the dust!

Terry

Terry Casey <k.type@example.invalid> wrote:

>Colin Stamp wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:58:25 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> [snip loads of good stuff]
>> 
>> I think you've covered everything except geometry. Most CRTs have
>> noticeable geometry problems, and cheap ones tend to be appalling.
>> 
>
>I think you've got that wrong! The geometry is dependent on the 
>electronics around it - the same CRT in two different receivers can show 
>excellent results in one and diabolical results in the other. (And that 
>is not just the geometry!)
>
>Presumably the same is true of LCD and Plasma panels..

Not quite. Every LCD and plasma should have absolute 100% *perfect*
geometry. Something I doubt even the most accurate CRT screens are
capable of (Sony BVM broadcast monitors?). Geometry is one area where
there is no competition.

It's harder and harder to straighten out the bigger, wider and flatter
the CRT you go. It's a crapshoot, same brand same model. Some are
horrible, some are OK, non are perfect. Yours is presumably good, but
side to side with an LCD you may spot the difference. However unless
there is clear asymmetry or tilt, these things are not always apparent
in casual viewing.. not least because camera lenses and our eyes also
contort images. 






--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

In article , Signal wrote:
> All that said, I would NOT trade the set for a plasma or LCD, for
> standard definition viewing. No way! In all other respects the set
> blows away every flat panel I've seen. Colour accuracy, richness,
> depth of field, blacks, response time, image clarity, etc.

Depth of field?

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Roderick Stewart  wrote:

>> All that said, I would NOT trade the set for a plasma or LCD, for
>> standard definition viewing. No way! In all other respects the set
>> blows away every flat panel I've seen. Colour accuracy, richness,
>> depth of field, blacks, response time, image clarity, etc.
>
>Depth of field?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg/800px-DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Signal  wrote:

>Roderick Stewart  wrote:
>
>>> All that said, I would NOT trade the set for a plasma or LCD, for
>>> standard definition viewing. No way! In all other respects the set
>>> blows away every flat panel I've seen. Colour accuracy, richness,
>>> depth of field, blacks, response time, image clarity, etc.
>>
>>Depth of field?
>
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg/800px-DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg

How does your TV restore information that's lost by the camera?  Magic?

-- 
Dave Farrance

In article , Signal wrote:
> >> All that said, I would NOT trade the set for a plasma or LCD, for
> >> standard definition viewing. No way! In all other respects the set
> >> blows away every flat panel I've seen. Colour accuracy, richness,
> >> depth of field, blacks, response time, image clarity, etc.
> >
> >Depth of field?
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/DOF-
ShallowDepthofField.jpg/800px-DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg

Thank you. I know what it means. What I didn't understand was how your 
choice of television display could have any effect on it.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Signal wrote:
> Terry Casey <k.type@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> I think you've got that wrong! The geometry is dependent on the 
>> electronics around it - the same CRT in two different receivers can show 
>> excellent results in one and diabolical results in the other. (And that 
>> is not just the geometry!)
>>
>> Presumably the same is true of LCD and Plasma panels..
> 
> Not quite. Every LCD and plasma should have absolute 100% *perfect*
> geometry. Something I doubt even the most accurate CRT screens are
> capable of (Sony BVM broadcast monitors?). Geometry is one area where
> there is no competition.
> 
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Sorry, I didn't make myself plain here.

Agreed about the geometry. What I should perhaps have said is that, 
geometry excluded, presumably the performance of specific LCD and Plasma 
panels also varies from excellent to diabolical dependant on the quality 
of the accompanying electronics in different receivers ...

Terry

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 
message news:VA.000004aa.00f2ba0f@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
> In article , Signal wrote:
>> >> All that said, I would NOT trade the set for a plasma or LCD, for
>> >> standard definition viewing. No way! In all other respects the set
>> >> blows away every flat panel I've seen. Colour accuracy, richness,
>> >> depth of field, blacks, response time, image clarity, etc.
>> >
>> >Depth of field?
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/DOF-
> ShallowDepthofField.jpg/800px-DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg
>
> Thank you. I know what it means. What I didn't understand was how your
> choice of television display could have any effect on it.

Holographic TV?

-- 
Max Demian

Roderick Stewart  wrote:

>> >> All that said, I would NOT trade the set for a plasma or LCD, for
>> >> standard definition viewing. No way! In all other respects the set
>> >> blows away every flat panel I've seen. Colour accuracy, richness,
>> >> depth of field, blacks, response time, image clarity, etc.
>> >
>> >Depth of field?
>> 
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/DOF-
>ShallowDepthofField.jpg/800px-DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg
>
>Thank you. I know what it means. What I didn't understand was how your 
>choice of television display could have any effect on it.

I don't see what the confusion is here? Of course PQ has an effect on
DOF... 





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Dave Farrance  wrote:

>>>> All that said, I would NOT trade the set for a plasma or LCD, for
>>>> standard definition viewing. No way! In all other respects the set
>>>> blows away every flat panel I've seen. Colour accuracy, richness,
>>>> depth of field, blacks, response time, image clarity, etc.
>>>
>>>Depth of field?
>>
>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg/800px-DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg
>
>How does your TV restore information that's lost by the camera?  Magic?

Where did you get "restore information" from?

I didn't say depth of field is enhanced or anything, just it's
reproduced more realistically. 





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Terry Casey <k.type@example.invalid> wrote:

>>> I think you've got that wrong! The geometry is dependent on the 
>>> electronics around it - the same CRT in two different receivers can show 
>>> excellent results in one and diabolical results in the other. (And that 
>>> is not just the geometry!)
>>>
>>> Presumably the same is true of LCD and Plasma panels..
>> 
>> Not quite. Every LCD and plasma should have absolute 100% *perfect*
>> geometry. Something I doubt even the most accurate CRT screens are
>> capable of (Sony BVM broadcast monitors?). Geometry is one area where
>> there is no competition.
>> 
>> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>Sorry, I didn't make myself plain here.
>
>Agreed about the geometry. What I should perhaps have said is that, 
>geometry excluded, presumably the performance of specific LCD and Plasma 
>panels also varies from excellent to diabolical dependant on the quality 
>of the accompanying electronics in different receivers ...

That seems to be true. I mean why is it that SD often looks crap on
LCD Tvs, yet can look good on plasmas? There doesn't seem to any
intrinsic display technology that accounts for such a margin..
smearing and bleed and the ilk OK.. but pixelation? I figure it must
be the associated electronics.

Here's hoping Brightside is at some point practical and affordable.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/1





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

In article , Signal wrote:
> >> >> All that said, I would NOT trade the set for a plasma or LCD, for
> >> >> standard definition viewing. No way! In all other respects the set
> >> >> blows away every flat panel I've seen. Colour accuracy, richness,
> >> >> depth of field, blacks, response time, image clarity, etc.
> >> >
> >> >Depth of field?
> >> 
> >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/DOF-
> >ShallowDepthofField.jpg/800px-DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg
> >
> >Thank you. I know what it means. What I didn't understand was how your 
> >choice of television display could have any effect on it.
> 
> I don't see what the confusion is here? Of course PQ has an effect on
> DOF...

I might guess we were somehow talking at cross-purposes here, and that you 
understood "depth of field" to mean something different, except that the 
picture in the link you gave is a clear demonstration of exactly what I 
understand by the expression. It's the range of distances from the camera 
lens within which objects are in focus. It's determined by the aperture 
setting of the lens, and you can't change it after the picture has been 
taken. If objects within a certain range are in focus, then objects 
outside that range will not be in focus, the fine detail from them will 
not have been captured by the camera, and the display will be unable to 
show detail that doesn't exist. Some objects will be sharper than others 
depending on their distances from the lens, and this will be an 
unalterable property of the picture no matter what kind of screen you use 
to display it.

Unless you really did mean something different of course, in which case 
"depth of field" wasn't the best expression to use because it already has 
its well understood optical meaning.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article , Signal wrote:
> I didn't say depth of field is enhanced or anything, just it's
> reproduced more realistically.

Is your day job in politics by any chance? :-)

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:33:23 +0100, Roderick Stewart
 wrote:

>In article , Signal wrote:
>> >> >> All that said, I would NOT trade the set for a plasma or LCD, for
>> >> >> standard definition viewing. No way! In all other respects the set
>> >> >> blows away every flat panel I've seen. Colour accuracy, richness,
>> >> >> depth of field, blacks, response time, image clarity, etc.
>> >> >
>> >> >Depth of field?
>> >> 
>> >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/DOF-
>> >ShallowDepthofField.jpg/800px-DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg
>> >
>> >Thank you. I know what it means. What I didn't understand was how your 
>> >choice of television display could have any effect on it.
>> 
>> I don't see what the confusion is here? Of course PQ has an effect on
>> DOF...
>
>I might guess we were somehow talking at cross-purposes here, and that you 
>understood "depth of field" to mean something different, except that the 
>picture in the link you gave is a clear demonstration of exactly what I 
>understand by the expression. It's the range of distances from the camera 
>lens within which objects are in focus. It's determined by the aperture 
>setting of the lens, and you can't change it after the picture has been 
>taken. If objects within a certain range are in focus, then objects 
>outside that range will not be in focus, the fine detail from them will 
>not have been captured by the camera, and the display will be unable to 
>show detail that doesn't exist. Some objects will be sharper than others 
>depending on their distances from the lens, and this will be an 
>unalterable property of the picture no matter what kind of screen you use 
>to display it.
>
>Unless you really did mean something different of course, in which case 
>"depth of field" wasn't the best expression to use because it already has 
>its well understood optical meaning.
>
>Rod.

I've been puzzling over this.

The only thing I can think of that could affect the depth of
field as seen in a picture is the picture being shown slightly
out of focus or at reduced resolution. This would reduce the
difference in clarity between the in-focus and out-of-focus
parts of the picture.

On 17 Aug, 22:58, Signal  wrote:
>
> Here's hoping Brightside is at some point practical and affordable.http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/1
>

Surely with a crt the contrast ratio is determined by the peak
focussed white / the ambient light reflected off the unlit phosphor.
In most household I think that is a pretty low ratio.

The lcd has an advantage here in that the switched off screen under
the same ambient light is darker than a crt;  the viewed contrast
ratio is determined by the ambient light until that gets below the tft
black level.

The brightside pictures appear to have been taken in total darkness.
The basic principle, of a coarse modulated light source behind the
picture, still limits at peak brightness divided by light reflected
from the screen, so it will be similar to any other lcd viewed in
roomlight.

HB

Roderick Stewart  wrote:

>In article , Signal wrote:
>> >> >> All that said, I would NOT trade the set for a plasma or LCD, for
>> >> >> standard definition viewing. No way! In all other respects the set
>> >> >> blows away every flat panel I've seen. Colour accuracy, richness,
>> >> >> depth of field, blacks, response time, image clarity, etc.
>> >> >
>> >> >Depth of field?
>> >> 
>> >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/DOF-
>> >ShallowDepthofField.jpg/800px-DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg
>> >
>> >Thank you. I know what it means. What I didn't understand was how your 
>> >choice of television display could have any effect on it.
>> 
>> I don't see what the confusion is here? Of course PQ has an effect on
>> DOF...
>
>I might guess we were somehow talking at cross-purposes here, and that you 
>understood "depth of field" to mean something different, except that the 
>picture in the link you gave is a clear demonstration of exactly what I 
>understand by the expression. It's the range of distances from the camera 
>lens within which objects are in focus. It's determined by the aperture 
>setting of the lens, and you can't change it after the picture has been 
>taken. If objects within a certain range are in focus, then objects 
>outside that range will not be in focus, the fine detail from them will 
>not have been captured by the camera, and the display will be unable to 
>show detail that doesn't exist. Some objects will be sharper than others 
>depending on their distances from the lens, and this will be an 
>unalterable property of the picture no matter what kind of screen you use 
>to display it.
>
>Unless you really did mean something different of course, in which case 
>"depth of field" wasn't the best expression to use because it already has 
>its well understood optical meaning.

Seems like I threw everyone off by referring to depth of field..? You
can simulate this... get a clean image off the web with shallow DOF.
Resize to 720x576, add mild pixelation. That's a bit like average
bitrate digital on a CRT. Apply some lossy upscaling for 1080, add
much more pixelation, reduce contrast and dynamic range, adjust colour
contours so blacks are off-black, crushing them to knock out some
shadow detail.. looks a bit like typical LCD TV with SD content! Don't
see why it's so hard to comprehend the latter noticably worsens the
clarity of DOF?





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

hb  wrote:

>> Here's hoping Brightside is at some point practical and affordable.http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/1
>>
>
>Surely with a crt the contrast ratio is determined by the peak
>focussed white / the ambient light reflected off the unlit phosphor.
>In most household I think that is a pretty low ratio.
>
>The lcd has an advantage here in that the switched off screen under
>the same ambient light is darker than a crt;  the viewed contrast
>ratio is determined by the ambient light until that gets below the tft
>black level.

This doesn't make sense to me. Switched off an LCD may be darker than
CRT (LOL!) but backlighting, there is better and worse, but generally
it's leaky. In good viewing conditions few achieve good blacks.

>The brightside pictures appear to have been taken in total darkness.
>The basic principle, of a coarse modulated light source behind the
>picture, still limits at peak brightness divided by light reflected
>from the screen, so it will be similar to any other lcd viewed in
>roomlight.

I see your point. Complete darkness isn't typical. In ambient light
the difference will be less marked.. but "similar to any other lcd"?
Bit of an assumption there I think.. and what level of ambient light?
When I'm watching a good film tends to be in very low light. Bit
unfair to judge based on sub-optimal conditions. Also Brightside
screens have "high end" anti-reflective coatings deliberately to
reduce this effect. Says so in their literature. 





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

In article , Signal wrote:
> Seems like I threw everyone off by referring to depth of field..? You
> can simulate this... get a clean image off the web with shallow DOF.
> Resize to 720x576, add mild pixelation. That's a bit like average
> bitrate digital on a CRT. Apply some lossy upscaling for 1080, add
> much more pixelation, reduce contrast and dynamic range, adjust colour
> contours so blacks are off-black, crushing them to knock out some
> shadow detail.. looks a bit like typical LCD TV with SD content! Don't
> see why it's so hard to comprehend the latter noticably worsens the
> clarity of DOF?

I don't doubt that what you describe will reduce the clarity of any 
picture, but it remains that "depth of feld", with its usual meaning, is 
an optical property of the lens and nothing you can do with a picture 
that has already been taken will alter it. If the most sharply focused 
objects in a picture are those within a particular range of distances 
from the lens, then exactly the same ones will still be the most sharply 
focused ones, even if an imperfect display makes everything look less 
sharp.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Signal wrote:
> 
> [Other minor geometry issues were easily remedied in the service menu]
> 

Don't suppose you know where I can get into it on a Panasonic TX-29AD? 
Or for that matter, how to use it?  My set has had appalling vertical 
linearity since I bought it.  Sadly when the dealer's engineer called 
for more information my wife told him she had no idea what I was on 
about, and they didn't fix it!

Andy

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:15:31 +0100, Java Jive  wrote:

> I'd also be interested to hear your comments on ...

Now moved to 
	http://tinyurl.com/6mf87k
 ... standing in for ...
http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/?action=view¤t=LCDInterlace.png

Alan White wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:43:18 +0100, John
> <john@ku.oc.evreseerf.nafah.reverse> wrote:
> 
>> We have a panasonic CRT IDTV which we bought about 8 years ago. The 
>> picture quality compared to friends LCDs is incredible.
>> ...
> 
> Presumably this was a side by side comparison with them both set up for
> optimum picture quality, i.e. all fancy settings in the respective menus
> unchecked, brightness, contrast and colour set properly and on the same
> programme material?

Err, no, but I don't think you expected the answer yes. My comment was 
based on 8 years watching my own TV with all the default settings and 3 
experiences of seeing LCD TVs in other houses from new (so presumably 
default settings) over the past couple of years. The picture on te LCD 
tvs never seems to move as smoothly as mine. The detail never seems as 
good. My TV cost (when it was last available) about £249 and the LCDs 
these people bought  cost between £300 and £500. I'd have thought for 
more money a few years later they'd be buying better quality and better 
pictures but it seems they just bought flatter TVs
-- 
John

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article ,
>    John <john@ku.oc.evreseerf.nafah.reverse> wrote:
>> We have a panasonic CRT IDTV which we bought about 8 years ago. The 
>> picture quality compared to friends LCDs is incredible. It is so good. 
>> The LCD TV we had in the holiday rental we had last week was pathetic. I 
>> messed with the settings as much as I could and it was acceptable. I 
>> wouldn't buy one yet though. I'll wait until our CRT breaks.
> 
> My next door neighbour has a CRT set (Sony widescreen) with a dreadful
> picture.
> 
> Your point being?

My point being that in 8 years things seem to have gone downhill. My TV 
cost less (when it was last available) than equivalent sized LCD screens 
  bought recently and the picture quality seems worse with jerky 
movement thrown in.

My father-in-law also has a CRT screen with a dreadful picture.
-- 
John