[Thomaswhitee]

Put simply I don't think you would get a CRT to display as well as current top of the line plasmas. I only say plasma because LCD is behind the ball with the amount of colours you can display (very obvious colour banding) and the contrast.

The big limitation with CRT is the display size. The bigger the screen the bigger, heavier and deeper the tube is. You can only make a table so big to sit a large tube on before it becomes impractical. The largest CRT's of the day were packing some serious weight and depth. Many people are now used to 32" being a default low end size and the norm being around 40". 50" is now the new affordable big TV. Then there are the 60" - 70" sizes for the rich. Quite simply CRT loses hands down in size.

While I'm sure we could have overcome some of these limitations further developing the technology, I think the overall consensus in the industry is that CRT was not the way to push forward.

I like CRT, but at most, I would only use it as a PC monitor. LCD has taken over the PC market and I'm not really a fan of LCD. Though in recent times I've had to bite the bullet and turf my old CRT as it was playing up and too damn heavy to move.

[neonasafluni]

I reckon this Sony GDMFW900 24" CRT Monitor is proberly one of the best screens ever produced:







(Maximum Resolution: 2304 x 1440 / 80 Hz)

Link to full specs here

I managed to snag one for less than a 100 squid and it goes nicely next to my dell 27" (2709w), is it as good as the dell though, i think the dell actually tops it mainly because its S-PVA but the crt sh**s all over most TN lcd's, the crt is the shiz niz for older games and SD stuff though.

[flopay]

Except you get that super annoying rainbow effect.

yea its not for everyone but my family doesnt see it so it works out perfectly

[AndrewBoss]

I managed to snag one for less than a 100 squid and it goes nicely next to my dell 27" (2709w), is it as good as the dell though, i think the dell actually tops it mainly because its S-PVA but the crt sh**s all over most TN lcd's, the crt is the shiz niz for older games and SD stuff though.

I love mine. Somehow, no idea, but if I did know I'd deal with it harshly, BOTH of my FW900's got scratches in their coating. Well, not so much a scratch, as a small nick, but it's still annoying.

They're getting old though. They still look great, but eventually they'll give out. Plus CRT's require you to adjust the screen. UGH. That alone make me want an LCD.


As for DLP rainbow for me it became less noticable as I got used to the set. When I first got my LED DLP I noticed it bad. Now I barely notice it at all. It's worth it for the price. It was like $1500 or $1600 for a 67".

[jurhoonee]

As for DLP rainbow for me it became less noticable as I got used to the set. When I first got my LED DLP I noticed it bad. Now I barely notice it at all. It's worth it for the price. It was like $1500 or $1600 for a 67".

Are rainbows that noticable even without a colour wheel?

[ChicasCams]

I think we also need to take into account that regardless of tech, manufacturers do not give a dam about IQ and progress is painfully slow.

[tadacia]

I think we also need to take into account that regardless of tech, manufacturers do not give a dam about IQ and progress is painfully slow.

Manufacturers care about what their customers want, ie what sells. Most people would go for a thin screen that's easier to manage rather than a great big box. Also these days people want massive screen sizes and CRTs are just impossible to make large enough. We used to have a 32" widescreen CRT and that was a beast! I can't imagine the size and weight of a larger screen sized CRT.

In the days when the average screen size was 21" you could get away with a CRT; these days they're just too impractical.

[ChicasCams]

Manufacturers care about what their customers want, ie what sells. Most people would go for a thin screen that's easier to manage rather than a great big box. Also these days people want massive screen sizes and CRTs are just impossible to make large enough. We used to have a 32" widescreen CRT and that was a beast! I can't imagine the size and weight of a larger screen sized CRT.

In the days when the average screen size was 21" you could get away with a CRT; these days they're just too impractical.

You didn't understand me correctly, what I am saying is that also with LCD TVs they do not go for the best IQ, see Edge LED.

[cucceevevaind]

Plus I can increase my [size] 4~6 inches and still decrease my energy consumption by 50% or more.

No matter the context, this is always something you want.

[Thomaswhitee]

No matter the context, this is always something you want.

Oh I see what you did there. [rofl]

[Unwiseevove]

because LCD is behind the ball with the amount of colours you can display (very obvious colour banding) and the contrast.

This is such a stupid thing to say I'm embarrassed for you. Have you actually looked at an LCD screen in the last couple of years? I don't believe you if you say yes. LCD's are not really up there for black levels with plasmas but colour reproduction on them is excellent.

@ OHP: I've used a few HD CRTs in the industry I am in and tbh, even mid-range plasmas are generally better than them.

[kjanyeaz1]

No matter the context, this is always something you want.

HAHAHAHA That's gold

[gdjfhdf]

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

The contrast ratio is a comparison of the luminance of the brightest and darkest colours generated by a display; therefore, it's impossible to have an infinite ratio, even with a CRT, as the darkest colour will still have some luminance value. It is, though, significantly higher than an LCD display by virtue of the fact that the black colour is a genuine lack of emitted light; an LCD will always transmit some light, even at full polarisation.

[JetePlentuara]

The contrast ratio is a comparison of the luminance of the brightest and darkest colours generated by a display; therefore, it's impossible to have an infinite ratio, even with a CRT, as the darkest colour will still have some luminance value. It is, though, significantly higher than an LCD display by virtue of the fact that the black colour is a genuine lack of emitted light; an LCD will always transmit some light, even at full polarisation.

I have seen a lot of reviews give panasonic a really hard time for advertising a contrast ratio of 1,000,000 to 1 by saying that isnt the true contrast ratio because it was measure comparing black color to white color ratio and a true test of modern screens uses color to color ratios instead. That seems like a whiny ass way for them to not make lcd's sound as bad as they are in comparison to a plasma in my opinion.

[Galsteinbok]

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

I agree with the exception of OLED. The screens I seen at CES this year just looked breath taking!

[ThzinChang]

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....

yeah, same here. I've got a 36' Phillips CRT HDTV, and the image quality has always been very good. I want to replace it with a 50inch LCD, but I'm having a hard time justifying it. The IQ is still very good and it works fine. Plus i don't have anywhere to put the 200lb beheamoth, so I'd have to get rid of it. Anyways, I'm hoping it dies soon so I don't have to feel guilty about spending $1500 on something new even though the crt works perfectly.

A few years ago, traditional CRT HD's like mine had better IQ than most DLPs and LCDs, however, that tech (particularly LCD) is starting to evolve, and these days it's mostly superior. Even if it was slightly less so, it would still be worth the tradeoff for slim form factor, less energy usage and lightweight.


how much do you think it costs electricity wise to run my 36" CRT 12-15 hours a day? Maybe i can justify dumping it that way I can also donate it to this non-profit I work for. So tempted to dump it.

[Unwiseevove]

how much do you think it costs electricity wise to run my 36" CRT 12-15 hours a day? Maybe i can justify dumping it that way I can also donate it to this non-profit I work for. So tempted to dump it.

About five times more than the equivalent LCD I believe. I got that out of a home cinema magazine though so you might want to check it.

[Thomaswhitee]

I still don't get why people are going after large LCD over Plasma? LCD is more expensive and just isn't as good.

Why pay more for less?

[arindiruppyr]

Back in 2003 I bought a 34" Sony Wega XBR CRT... IMO it blew away the picture quality of anything else I came across at the time. It did 1080i no problem and looked marvelous. I gave it to my mom when I moved to Maryland last year, and it's still chugging along. [thumbup]

[Unwiseevove]

I still don't get why people are going after large LCD over Plasma? LCD is more expensive and just isn't as good.

Why pay more for less?

You really don't know what you are talking about.

LCD is at most the same price as plasma, usually a little bit cheaper.

Neither is better than each other. As general rules (and obviously high end models buck the trend):

Plasma is better for smoother motion and contrast ratios
LCD is better for IQ and sharpness