CRT is still king ? Is this true ? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

CRT is still king ? Is this true ?

cats Avatar
8y, 3m agoPosted 8 years, 3 months ago
Is it true that current lcd / plasma technology is miles away from CRT quality ?

my mate says that CRT is still the ultimate quality, and has shown me links where graphic studios, televions studios, and film studios ALL still use only CRTs for working on.

he also says that the response rate of CRT is instant, and that blacks are true blacks and not greys as on the lcd / plasma tvs.

my 50" plasma is OK I thought, but i do know the black is not real black and I notice blockingness unless it has a HD signal.

if all this is true ( and it seems to be the case ) then why did everyone chuck out superior CRTs for inferior flat tvs ?

bring it on.
cats Avatar
8y, 3m agoPosted 8 years, 3 months ago
Options

All Comments

(37) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
CRTs are bulky, heavy and impractical - their response rate is not instant, CRTs have a refresh rate which means the image is constantly being refreshed even if its static. They do have an advantage that they can show any resolution without degradation although at high resolution they usually have a limited refresh rate which means having to choose a lower refresh rate to keep a good refresh and decent image quality

I'm well aware of the differences however for my TV I just couldn't carry on with my 28 inch TV which needed three people to move it. I can move my 40 inch TV on my own with ease, as I only use HD sources the image quality is very good most of the time.

For a PC monitor the advantage of a TFT screen is that it only refreshes if needed so when reading text the image is completely static and sharp. I had a very good quality CRT monitor however there was only so long I could use it before it gave me a headache when reading a lot of text.

John
#2
I know what you mean about the black not being proper black or it just looks hazy at times. But style and practicality wins the market over. Maybe professionals do use CRT if it's superior for what they are doing but I beat those professionals have LCD tvs anyway!
#3
it used to be the case when TFT's were just released, they used to suffer from massive input lag, bad colours and were extremely expensive...
#4
I still use a mitsubishi diamondtron for colour correction , but i have to say with the llatest tv;s using dvi at native resolutions they look fantastic. You are really not losing anything.
#5
whilst my plasma may not be as a good CRT , I know it has limitations, but it can give good quality at high res.

what really I find confusing, is people who buy LCD screens, when plasma is so much better in image quality ?

price wise, they are about the same nowadays, yet people still buy LCD more - I still hear stories about the plasma gas needing replacing every few years ( this was with a chat with my elderly neighbour ) , plasmas have never needed the gas changing ! who on earth spread these rumours, and amazing how they have stuck.

but Ive seen LCD on SD signal, and the image was simply unwatchable, it was horrid in every way. and the person who I know that owns this tv, binned a perfectly good crt for it.

are we really living in ' the age of the moron ' as ben elton put it last year ?
#6
Johnmcl7
I'm well aware of the differences however for my TV I just couldn't carry on with my 28 inch TV which needed three people to move it. I can move my 40 inch TV on my own with ease, as I only use HD sources the image quality is very good most of the time.
John


interesting comments, but I never thought about the moving-it aspect, I mean, how often does anyone move their TVs ? I bet never, until they need to replace them ?

True, with HD image can be good, Im curious to know when that free-sat service will provide proper HD service ?

at the moment ( i dont have it ) it seems you need to - press red - on bbc1 to access bbc-1 - HD , not really a great service

then there is the question of recording HD, recorder cant press the red button (!)

in many ways, it seems the high res signal needing flat tvs are still too early for the state of tv broadcasting ?
#7
How do you mean about the recording? We record a lot of BBC HD fine. Just to show off the colour and picture quality to people!! The opening ceremony for the Olympics looked amazing...
#8
Is it true that current lcd / plasma technology is miles away from CRT quality


No, LCD technology is significantly more advanced and has many advantages over CRT. CRT does have fundamental advantages over LCD though as well.

my mate says that CRT is still the ultimate quality, and has shown me links where graphic studios, televions studios, and film studios ALL still use only CRTs for working on.


They are very specialist areas - and its also not strictly true, many have now switched to LCD. Of course whether they use LCD or CRT they likely use professional standard monitors which cost several thousands of pounds and offer much greater colour accuracy and resolution than standard monitors/TVs.

he also says that the response rate of CRT is instant, and that blacks are true blacks and not greys as on the lcd / plasma tvs.


Its not instant on CRT, it is at best 10mS on a double-scan TV - the picture is effective 'drawn' by a scanning beam unlike an LCD where the picture is a constant image. Contrast is greater in CRTs as the light is produced by the tube, not an always-on backlight. Future LCD designs will use LED backlighting more and more, which in the future will allow zones of backlight to be reduced and increase the dynamic range to nearer what CRT can reproduce. CRTs themselves are not 'true' black, just closer than most LCDs.

Of course the biggest downside to CRTs is the bulk, the expense to manufacture, the expense to ship, the excessive energy consumption and overall environmental impact.
#9
Just curious, does no-one else find CRT TVs unbearably flickery?
#10
Am I the only person left in the world who still has a CRT as my main TV?:oops:
#11
dxx
Just curious, does no-one else find CRT TVs unbearably flickery?


I dont remember any flicker at all on my old crt. and it was only a 50hz model, with no digital processing.

but on the cheap Crts, yes, the flicker could be noticeable, I think a top of the range crt offered a still unbeatable image quality today.

what I notice about lcds screens / monitors, is that when you look at them, the screen doesnt look that ' solid ' , if u know what i mean, its like the image has a see through quality to it.

i also find lcds to be overly bright , my plasma is not as bright, i mean, the light quality to it is nicer than the light quality to a lcd

from what I can gather, lcds were only designed to offer thin panels, for laptops really, it wasnt a technology where they said, lets make something better than a crt monitor, it was merely a laptop needed a thin screen, and lcd is the best they came up with, no mention of crt quality was ever made by any of the lcd manufactures

even today, top of the line plasmas are still referred to ( by the manufacturers ) as offering ' crt like ' levels of contrast , note the ' like ' , not 'as'.

the more I think about it, the more it seems the nation has been hoodwinked into buying flawed LCD technology, as a replacement for proper Tv tech ( ie CRTs / plasmas )
#12
bitseylango
Am I the only person left in the world who still has a CRT as my main TV?:oops:


no !

i know many people that still use high end CRT tvs, and said they would never buy a lcd or plasma ( unless they become as good as crts )

reasons gived were , proper black level , excellent contrast ratios, no motion breakup issues or image ' noise ' , and just simply that overall the images are clean, look natural, and dont look cartoonised as per lcd.

i must agree, the word cartoonised does sum up what ive seen of lcd image quality to date.

it really is a step back, not forward.
#13
bitseylango
Am I the only person left in the world who still has a CRT as my main TV?:oops:


yes you are :whistling:
#14
the colour gamut of a CRT monitor is still much larger that any LCD/plasma one. hence for areas where exact colour reproduction is necessary CRTs are still the way to go.
#15
no.

Plasma>>>

what brand is your plasma OP
#16
black gerbil1
no.

Plasma>>>

what brand is your plasma OP


its a Pioneer Kuros.
#17
cats
its a Pioneer Kuros.

damn you sure you got everything set up right, I got that in a 43", great picture, what cables you using
#18
It is true that for standard definiton CRTs produce a better standard resolution picture because they are capable of displaying any resolution up to standard resolution. With digital technology the pixels are pre defined which means displaying non indigenous resolutions results in interpolation. For instance, a digital screen of 1366x768 cannot truly display a PAL resolution of 625 lines. The 625 lines need to somehow fit on a 768 vertical resolution and as the digital display cannot adjust pixel sizes (they are fixed) then interpolation takes place resulting in blockiness.

Yes blacks are true blacks on CRTs and indeed they are on plasmas too as pixels can be individually switched off on plasma displays. It is not the case with LCD technology as the backlighting is constantly on and black is produced by blocking out backlighting. It stands to reason that blocking out light is not perfect as light seepage will occur resulting in dark grays on poor quality displays.

I think your friend meant response rate is not an issue with CRTs. Response rate is the time measured for one pixel to change from one colour to another. As CRTs do not have a digital display the response rate does not apply. Incidentally, response rates given by manufacturers of LCDs are irrelevant because these are figures quoted for the quickest pixel to pixel colour change rather than an average. Some colours change quicker than others, for example grey to grey may be quicker than red to green but manufacturers will not tell you that.

Why do people choose LCDs? Well, the biggest reason is of course HD video. Very few CRTs are capable of display HD resolutions and even fewer have HDCP decoding (one of the requirements for HD Ready). Some choose digital displays for aesthetic reasons as mentioned earlier. For those who have no requirements for HD, the venerable CRT still reigns supreme in terms of picture quality.
#19
regarding plasmas and why people choose lcd? erm, as far as i remember lcd was cheaper but i'd heard the power consumption of plasma was high, that they're lifespan maybe shorter and that they can suffer from burn in of the image. Although - yes ive heard the picture is very good, just 2nd hand info i heard when we were thinking of getting a new tv
#20
I think it's similar to the film/digital camera. Film cameras seem to produce higher quality pictures, but the digital camera - which is more practical and less costly - doesn't give any lower quality for what they want to use it for.
#21
cold toast
regarding plasmas and why people choose lcd? erm, as far as i remember lcd was cheaper but i'd heard the power consumption of plasma was high, that they're lifespan maybe shorter and that they can suffer from burn in of the image. Although - yes ive heard the picture is very good, just 2nd hand info i heard when we were thinking of getting a new tv


Plasma display do not necessarily consume more power than LCD displays. In darker scenes, pixels can be turned off for plasma displays whereas for LCD displays, the backlighting is still on which uses does consume quite a lot of power. If all pixels are non-black then the LCD will use less power than the plasma display. Power usage is dependent on what is being displayed and there is no generic rule to define which one is more power hungry than the other.
#22
CRT tellys are great for one reason, to replace like for like it costs more for a 28" CRT than a 32" lcd (due to higher production qauntities therefore bringing the mass prodused lcd's/plasma's down)as we found out when i dropped ours during moving/decorating process our insurance has a no excess policy for home entertainment items so paid out in cash (well as a cheque) and as we had a spare 28" crt we didnt bother replacing.

What amazes me is the sheer number of perfectly good 28" CRT's that frequently pop up on freecycle, for us a CRT is better due to having small kids and being more robust to sticky finger syndrome.

The only argument for moving to lcd/plasma at the minute is for us is our 360 elite as we cant use hi-def or the hdmi on it! So when it comes to upgrade its going to have to be wall mounted!
#23
black gerbil1
damn you sure you got everything set up right, I got that in a 43", great picture, what cables you using


using some monster brand cables. dont get me wrong, i mean image IS good, and the blacks are the best of any flat tv , but i still thing the image lacks a naturalness of a good crt. it still has a processed look to the image, and the motion though good, never feels as seemless as on crt.

having said that, for a large screen tv, the kuros is as good as it gets right now. good to hear u got one too. highly recomened.
#24
You're talking about a 43" diagonal image though, I've never seen a CRT bigger than 32" so they are not even really comparable in that respect. For supersized TVs plasma, LCD and RP are pretty much your only options.
#25
ElliottC
It is true that for standard definiton CRTs produce a better standard resolution picture because they are capable of displaying any resolution up to standard resolution. With digital technology the pixels are pre defined which means displaying non indigenous resolutions results in interpolation. For instance, a digital screen of 1366x768 cannot truly display a PAL resolution of 625 lines. The 625 lines need to somehow fit on a 768 vertical resolution and as the digital display cannot adjust pixel sizes (they are fixed) then interpolation takes place resulting in blockiness.

Yes blacks are true blacks on CRTs and indeed they are on plasmas too as pixels can be individually switched off on plasma displays. It is not the case with LCD technology as the backlighting is constantly on and black is produced by blocking out backlighting. It stands to reason that blocking out light is not perfect as light seepage will occur resulting in dark grays on poor quality displays.

I think your friend meant response rate is not an issue with CRTs. Response rate is the time measured for one pixel to change from one colour to another. As CRTs do not have a digital display the response rate does not apply. Incidentally, response rates given by manufacturers of LCDs are irrelevant because these are figures quoted for the quickest pixel to pixel colour change rather than an average. Some colours change quicker than others, for example grey to grey may be quicker than red to green but manufacturers will not tell you that.

Why do people choose LCDs? Well, the biggest reason is of course HD video. Very few CRTs are capable of display HD resolutions and even fewer have HDCP decoding (one of the requirements for HD Ready). Some choose digital displays for aesthetic reasons as mentioned earlier. For those who have no requirements for HD, the venerable CRT still reigns supreme in terms of picture quality.



great comment, thanks .... really well explained,


my one addition would be, why choose LCD over a Plasma ?

also, the plasma pixel is never really black even if off, i mean, the surface of the screen is not really black, more grey, and on other plasmas, its even a lighter grey. i suppose it is still a much better solution than trying to block out light as you said on lcd screens, that really seems like a silly idea when u think about it now - doh !
#26
None can or will ever produce a 'true' black. Whilst the LCD method is clearly the most inferior in terms of likely leakage, all forms of display will suffer from some extra unwanted effects raising the black level. With plasma the problem that the creation of the plasma state is not instant and also has a decay so some unwanted light will leak and there is a noticable refresh time. CRTs likewise aren't perfect, as with plasmas they rely upon phosphors which do not decay instantly.

There will be options far better than the current technologies in the mid-to-long term, probably including OLED based displays (which potentially offer better constrast, response time and colour gamut than any current medium) and LED based backlighting on LCDs - they are a few years off mainstream yet, but then its only about 10 years that plasmas have been widely available!
#27
I read an article today, about a £ 1,200 LCD tv ( rrp ) it was in one of those free sunday papers, and the review conclusion was that it was a good set, but had some issues with fast movement !

thats like saying, the new pentium-9 cpu is extremely fast, but has some issues with adding up !!

if they still cant make LCDs that can display a moving image, it seems they never will. I personally wish all LCDs died out, and plasma was the only option, it seems their is a herd mentality with people all the time, they seem to think LCD is the newest and latest thing, so it must be the best, my neighbour has a lcd tv, and when asked why he chose that over the plasma, he said it was cos his mate told him lcd was better

seems the masses are hearing that lcd is better, ( from shop staff ? ) and just passing on this rumour from one to another.

it is much easier to produce a LCD screen ( pixel membrane over a back light ! ) , then it is to make a plasma screen ( gas filled tiny particles , individually ignited ) , I can understand why the manufacturers love to sell LCDs, great profits, sadly people cant see past this.
#28
cats;2742200
I read an article today, about a £ 1,200 LCD tv ( rrp ) it was in one of those free sunday papers, and the review conclusion was that it was a good set, but had some issues with fast movement !

thats like saying, the new pentium-9 cpu is extremely fast, but has some issues with adding up !!

if they still cant make LCDs that can display a moving image, it seems they never will. I personally wish all LCDs died out, and plasma was the only option, it seems their is a herd mentality with people all the time, they seem to think LCD is the newest and latest thing, so it must be the best, my neighbour has a lcd tv, and when asked why he chose that over the plasma, he said it was cos his mate told him lcd was better

seems the masses are hearing that lcd is better, ( from shop staff ? ) and just passing on this rumour from one to another.

it is much easier to produce a LCD screen ( pixel membrane over a back light ! ) , then it is to make a plasma screen ( gas filled tiny particles , individually ignited ) , I can understand why the manufacturers love to sell LCDs, great profits, sadly people cant see past this.


Your massively underestimating the complexity of an TFT screen there - its not that simple to produce a substrate of any kind and the cost of setting up a substrate manufacturer is mind-boggling. It is the fact that TFT screens are used so ubiquitously in laptops, computer systems, handheld devices, digital cameras and now both small and large televisions that is driving down the cost of manufacture, which ultimately ends with prices falling faster with TFT than the other forms.

Plasma is often better in terms of moving image quality (at lower resolutions), especially on very large displays, but the R&D behind TFT will result in more rapid advances, especially where the backlight is concerned. Remember that plasma, TFT, OLED and white LED backlighting are all very recent technologies and it takes time and money to setup mass manufacture of new silicon based technologies - but in a few years when 40" LED backlit 2560x1600 displays are available for under £1000 I reckon TFT will be the display of choice :thumbsup:
#29
fair enough, but Ill take the 40" OLED please !!

Im curious, is the led backlight a tiny individual light for each pixel ? or just loads of large leds to illumnate the entire back panel, just like a conventional lite ?

i ask, as if its the latter, I cant see how it can imporve black levels ?

also, I dont think they will ever be able to handle fast motion seemlessly, i think its just impossible, i think they wouldve done it by now if it was possible.,
#30
cats
interesting comments, but I never thought about the moving-it aspect, I mean, how often does anyone move their TVs ? I bet never, until they need to replace them ?



Over the last ten years, I have lived in eight different places. In my current house my 40in TV has been in three different rooms as well as two other people's houses. While it's not mobile, it is easy to move and takes up so little space comparatively that I can take advantage of my investment. When it came to move again from Edinburgh to Inverness that was the death toll for my CRT as I couldn't be bothered getting it out of the flat, one of my flatmates happily took it off my hands.

John
#31
At present LED backlighting is 1 block as you say (so doesn't dynamically improve contrast but does give an improved colour gamut), but LED substrates are rapidly advancing and the ultimate goal would be an LED (or 3) per pixel (progressing from small blocks of pixels) - not dissimilar to an OLED display. This way small units could be made extra dark or extra light, increasing dynamic range.

Remember also that professional level TFTs are available at the moment (they cost a pretty packet mind) that offer much higher resolution than any other sort of display along with excellent colour reproduction - these technologies will filter into mainstream display eventually...
#32
bitseylango;2736309
Am I the only person left in the world who still has a CRT as my main TV?:oops:


No you are not! I only have one TV in my house and it is a Toshiba 36ZP48, which is an awesome TV! Found the receipt for it the other day and it made my eyes water a touch when I realised that I paid just over a grand for it three and a half years ago!

It gives a great picture and having experienced various flat screens (both LCD and plasmas), my "old" CRT out performs them all. I have no need for HD until it hits the mainstream (i.e. the five main channels run it full time), so the "limited" display options of the set are fine for me.

One thing I have noticed though is that the picture I get through sky is poor compared to the signal my dad gets through freeview (he has the same set).

If you have the room (this set weighs 80kg and is 60cm deep!!) and are not fussed about HD, then I would get one of these off fleabay for about 150 notes. For that price, they are an absolute bargain!

Just my two penneth...
#33
not_the_messiah

One thing I have noticed though is that the picture I get through sky is poor compared to the signal my dad gets through freeview (he has the same set).
...


totally agree, we need fulltime HD , too many people running SD on HD sets, looks awfull.

Sky poorer quality ? Yes, sky tv is cack frankly, they use lots of compression and it shows as poor image quality, they even use compression on HD channels !

mad I know, just another con really, freeview is much better, especially the main 5 channels, they are very good actually, but you need a good 3view box, no supermarket cheapies....
#34
cats;2743312
totally agree, we need fulltime HD , too many people running SD on HD sets, looks awfull.

Sky poorer quality ? Yes, sky tv is cack frankly, they use lots of compression and it shows as poor image quality, they even use compression on HD channels !

mad I know, just another con really, freeview is much better, especially the main 5 channels, they are very good actually, but you need a good 3view box, no supermarket cheapies....


Is freesat as badly compressed as Sky is then as I was hoping this would solve all my problems - was hoping to ditch my sky digibox and get a humax freesat pvr when it released...
#35
hmm, no idea about freesat being as poor as Sky HD

if its anything like 3view, then it should be a lot better, my feeling is it will be better,

u can always just get a normal non-pvr 3sat box , just to see what the image is like ?

personally, I have 0 interest in Sky tv, image quality is cack , littered with adverts, and if i wanna watch a film, I get to choose exactly what i want to see from dvd online rental, and its all much cheaper too !
#36
cats;2743778
personally, I have 0 interest in Sky tv, image quality is cack , littered with adverts, and if i wanna watch a film, I get to choose exactly what i want to see from dvd online rental, and its all much cheaper too !


Couldn't agree more! :thumbsup:
#37
I got a Pioneer Kuro Plasma , but im starting to wish i never bothered.

I agree Plasma is tons better then LCD , ive tried all models off LCD and i returned them all due to poor picture.

However my Pioneer Kuro had 3 dead Pixels on the screen , which i think paying what i did i shouldnt have to live with , then a few months down the line i get a big line across screen......its now being repaired.

I never had these problems with a CRT , not sure if i will pay over a grand for a Plasma TV again ...because for me ive just had to many things go wrong with it ....its still not as good as a CRT , it comes close though.

I only brought a Plasma for style , i like to have the latest thing , but if you dont mind all that then i would say stick to CRT until plasma/lcd gets much better.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!