LCDs vs CRTs (moved to HDTV forum)
 

I'm a tad bit confused and I don't realy trust the sales rep at a local electronic store. When HDTVs like the LCDs resolutions natively are 768 (HD but not true 1080). Then what are CRTs res are they true 1080??

Thanks

The CRTs are, yes. But there are also 1080i flatscreens available now.

ahhh yes I leaning towards CRT because of the true resolution, price and no lag but the draw back is the weight and size.

I doubt you'll find any CRT that can display a full 1080 lines of res. I have a Sony XBR960, one of the best-picture CRTs available, and the image is indeed drop-dead gorgeous. But it can't come anywhere close to displaying 1920x1080.

I made a simple crosshatch .JPG and loaded it onto a memorystick, and plugged that into the TV and used the TV's picture displayer function. No way did it come anywhere near resolving the image.

So Barry, you're saying even though the CRT models claim to be 1080i that they can not actually display this resolution?

If this is the case, what would you expect the actual displayed resolution to be?

I too am looking to buy a HD CRT 100Hz Panasonic TV as they're much cheaper than LCD's right now & still have an amazing picture....

I'm not Barry (but I play on one TV)...

When a consumer CRT says 1080 anywhere in it's literature, it's most likely talking more about what format it's circuitry is working in natively. If it says 1080, then any 720 input is going to be upconverted to 1080 before display (which may suck, or may be great, depending).

As Barry said, there really aren't ANY crts that show full 1920x1080 resolution like an Apple Cinema Display. That goes for the $40,000 Sony BVM series monitors as well.

Here in Los Angeles, the mid/lower level HD edit suites are going with a dual display philosophy: a 23" Apple Cinema Display driven by Blackmagic or AJA HD-SDI->DVI converter, along with a mid level multiformat CRT like a Sony 20L5. This way you get to see accurate color on the CRT, and pixel-for-pixel focus and artifact monitoring on the LCD. You see both of these side by side and it's clear why many pros reject LCDs for color-correction, although the tide will eventually have to turn on that point.

Correct. It is capable of ingesting a 1080i signal and displaying its picture, but not of resolving 1080 lines of detail. Not by a long shot.

Just like most plasmas that they advertise as 1080i capable... the native resolution is 768 lines. The 1080 will get scaled to fit the resolution of the display.

Didn't test for that. I should rasterize a resolution chart and put that on the memorystick and then display it; should be a good way to find out how many TVL it's capable of resolving. Still won't answer the question in terms of pixels though, but once I know where the blur takes over, I could probably then go in and count the pixels and figure out a resolvable number.

But don't get me wrong -- CRTs may not be able to resolve all the detail, but they look fantastic. I think CRTs deliver the best-looking high-def picture. CRTs also tend to blur out the noise and artifacting, so if you're talking about a monitor to watch on in your home, a CRT has a lot to offer (plus they're cheap... but huge and heavy and limited in screen size). If you want to see what's really happening to your footage, you can't beat an LCD. But LCDs do your footage no favors.

If you're looking for a monitor for your edit suite that only you will see, an LCD could be a good choice for that, a CRT would be not the best choice for that. If you're looking for a "client monitor" where you want the client to see the footage and feel all warm and fuzzy, well, a CRT might do you some favors that an LCD or plasma wouldn't (because a CRT will mask the fine-detail noise and artifacts, whereas a native-pixel LCD will show them all).

Hmm so LCDs is still lacking to be at the same level as CRTs?? Or is it cause LCD can't perform as CRTs so thats why LCDs shows "fine-detail noise and artifacts".

LCD is very warts and all accurate. CRTs are very rose tinted glasses.

Graeme