[Nurba]

obviously its old tech these days and aside from having a 42" HD tv tube would be massively heavy I would say that if one was ever produced it would be better quality image wise than lcd and plasma.

what you guys think.

[giDdfezP]

I think it wouldn't. Actually, it might. I am no expert.

[pavlik]

Tube HDTV's were fairly commonplace a few years back.

I have a 36" widescreen Sony CRT HDTV, and its an absolute beauty, easily rivaling some of the better plasmas on the market in terms of PQ.

Its a 200lb behemoth, though....

[jurhoonee]

CRT HDTVs didn't catch on here, I think only Samsung bought one out and it was ****.

For the large screen CRT experience you could get an 8" or 9" CRT projector, they are massive though and weigh a ton, can need a lot of maintenance too. Would have cost 10's of thousands years back but can be had for a few hundred now.

To be honest it's best to stick to modern tech.

[Kimmitmelvirm]

No, not enough profit from consumers. Military doesn't care, Hollywood doesn't seem to care either. Won't happen.

[mXr8icOB]

Weight is probably a major reason.

I picked up a free 55" RPHD tv off craigslist recently. Didn't work but got it working with $3 of caps.

F'ing thing weighs 250 lbs. I don't understand how the hell a RP tv weighs that much.

[flopay]

DLP all the way... under 100 pounds for 56 in

[Aafimoq]

DLP all the way... under 100 pounds for 56 in

Except you get that super annoying rainbow effect.

[Abaronos]

Except you get that super annoying rainbow effect.

That is only if you notice it, and some models as far as I know of was able to do away with the rainbow effect.


My eyes are very sensitive, and my parents have a 60" DLP, of which I an no one else has ever noticed a rainbow effect.
DLP is freaking awesome though imo. Quality is just as good, best weight/size ratio. Low power consumption. Our 60" I think is less than 90lbs.
Dad bought a 42" Plasma for church a long time ago and that thing was like 150lbs. Freaking stupid.


Only real negative of DLP is having to replace the light bulbs. Though my parents have had theirs for 2 years so far, still on the original light.



My friend though does have an HDTV CRT. It is like a 32" maybe 36". Some off brand though and it is a pos. It only supports 480i/1080i though.

[erubresen]

I wonder, how much better CRT would be today, if LCD tech wouldn't exist? We know that LCD displays used to be really bad not many years ago although CRT has existed several ten years, when LCD is like twenty years old or something.

For desktop computers, 1080p or 1200p widescreen CRT monitor would be really good, if you ignore size, weight, power consumption and extra radiation. LCD has sharper image, but colors, motion are inferior and cheap panels have very narrow viewing angles. Dead pixels are pain too. Never seen dead pixels in CRT monitors and I use only cheap models.

If only consumers could be more objective about CRT vs LCD and don't cover behind "LCD is new tech, CRT is old tech" mantra. Maybe most choose convenience over quality, but LCD is not superior in every way.

[Nurba]

Except you get that super annoying rainbow effect.

thats only if you sneeze

[Nurba]

I personally think CRT HD would piss all over plasma lcd oled n what not !

its just that the market wouldnt take it seriously enough to mass produce because of the sheer size n weight

[cucceevevaind]

I personally think CRT HD would piss all over plasma lcd oled n what not !

its just that the market wouldnt take it seriously enough to mass produce because of the sheer size n weight

Disagreed. I had a CRT HD set and it was garbage compared to anything out there right now. Yeah it had great image quality compared to the LCDs it was competing with at the time, but newer LCDs have so many more features and a much better contrast ratio. Also CRTs were prone to overscanning, and they only supported 1080i. Yuck.

[Daruhuw]

Disagreed. I had a CRT HD set and it was garbage compared to anything out there right now. Yeah it had great image quality compared to the LCDs it was competing with at the time, but newer LCDs have so many more features and a much better contrast ratio. Also CRTs were prone to overscanning, and they only supported 1080i. Yuck.

OHP meant to say.. what if a CRT could be at least 1080p, no overscanning and all more. Not to discuss old CRT tech with new LCD/LED/OLED whatever.

[wCYvMKAc]

SED's (I think) would be as close to the modern equivalent of the old CRT as you can get, and I'd bet there probably will eventually be displays that large if the technology proves profitable.

[Nurba]

SED's (I think) would be as close to the modern equivalent of the old CRT as you can get, and I'd bet there probably will eventually be displays that large if the technology proves profitable.

for others to read.

http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/sed_tvs.htm

I think this may if it ever gets released make its debut in the PC screen world first

[pavlik]

Disagreed. I had a CRT HD set and it was garbage compared to anything out there right now. Yeah it had great image quality compared to the LCDs it was competing with at the time, but newer LCDs have so many more features and a much better contrast ratio. Also CRTs were prone to overscanning, and they only supported 1080i. Yuck.

Don't CRT's have an "infinite" contrast ratio, since they display true blacks?

LCD's are a heck of a lot brighter, though.

[durootrium]

I'm going to say no. LCD is much cheaper to produce now.
________
P_E_A_C_H

[JetePlentuara]

the real issue with crt hdtv isnt just the weight, even though they are way to heavy, the biggest issue was the depth and size of the tube. For some reason I remember reading that 36" was the max you can go on a wide screen crt because beyond that they start to have severe geometry issues. the later gen of samsung and sony crt hdtv's tried to go with the slim depth tubes and that resulted in really poor geometry issues that you wouldnt notice most of the time, but after you saw it the first time it would drive you insane. I have a sony 30" widescreen crt and while the image that it produces is amazing overall it took me months of tweaking in the service menu after getting a sony tech out to the house a couple of times to work on it before I ever got it to where I could stand to watch anything that has scrolling text across the bottom or subtitles. Once I stood over the guys shoulder and watched how he got into the service menu I was eventually able to resolve all the geometry issues but having the top left corner curve down slightly right at the edge. Samsung did get their slim hdtv's looking pretty good right before they killed them off, which I can only assume they did because their was no market left for them due to the limitation in size and the weight issue. $1000 for a 36" tube or $1000 for a 42" plasma.

I have decided that I will probably sell it with the house though because due to its size and weight it is nearly impossible to get up and down stairs. one person is trying to hold 200lbs above their head while the other is holding it at their knees.

[Abaronos]

Dead pixels are pain too. Never seen dead pixels in CRT monitors and I use only cheap models.

My Dell 17" CRT has one dead pixel actually. Kind of sucks, though I have had this monitor for so long, I don't really notice it unless i am looking for it.


Though I hope to get new LCD monitor here soon. This CRT is kind of frustrating because it is so big and heavy. Plus I can increase my screen size 4~6 inches and still decrease my energy consumption by 50% or more.
This tube sucks in 90watts, while there are two LCDs that I am looking at. One that I am looking at for example is 22inches and consumes only 45watts. There is a 24" 19x10 LCD that I would like to get that consumes just 31 watts, but costs way to much for what I would be willing to spend on a computer monitor.




Manufacturing costs, a long with what the general public is looking for in a TV shifts what is sold on the market and what dies off.
Like Plasma for example. Picture quality, again, superior to LCD though it was too expensive, too heavy and consumed a minimum of twice the wattage per inch than an LCD does. This is why Plasmas are no longer.
If you bought a TV purely for having the best quality TV that money could buy in a general price segment, you always went Plasma.
Same goes for DLP. Better quality, but still not what the general public was wantingr. Had a lot of great pros, but has some cons as well and DLP is pretty much dead and never even really took off the ground.