AVS Forum Archive 2 - Help. Best, top of the line 34" widescreen Direct view CRT?

Rolando A

11-13-04, 03:27 PM

As the title states I need some help.

I am looking to buy a new TV and I had pretty decided on the 34HFX84.

I suddenly realized however I was going for it based on a liking for Toshiba's Cinema series from checking out their 51" and 65" RPTVs last year.

So I want your opinions guys, what is the best, top of the line 34" widescreen Direct view CRT?

I am looking for the best of the best picture wise. Features are secondary unless it affects PQ. For example I am overlooking the 34HF84 because I cannot disable the SVM.

I hear Panasonic has a nice one but does not accept 720p signals. Sony sounds nice but from past experience they are overpriced and I rather have the BEST PQ regardless of name.

So where to go.

Now I know the best thing would be for me to see myself and compare visually but there are NO stores in my area that have the in proper conditions for comparison. All are in "sports mode" and it bright light display areas.

I will be viewing DVD 90% of the time and hopefully soon some HD content.

Thanks in advance guys!

PS I think this is my first or second post here but have been lurking in and out as I have been referred here from another HT forum I have been a member of for years.

subysouth

11-13-04, 03:51 PM

Getting the BEST performance out of a typical 34" CRT is either difficult or impossible depending on the brand in question.

If you dont mind just very good performance(limited to scanning rates counter to the sets actual resolution,) Sony, Toshiba and Panasonic all make excellent models with Sony having the finest pitch screens which allow you to sit closer than other sets. The Sony fails to do full 1080i by a narrower margin than the other sets. None of them attempt 720p.

The best picture that can be found from a direct-view 34" CRT is gonna be from one of the limited number of digital monitors which accept a computer input attached to a HTPC driven at the sets ACTUAL resolution(likely a custom not established rate.) But thats a lot of work.

So do you want easy and very good and feature rich OR do you want the best picture out there and a lot of work and few features?

There is no current magic bullet in the 34" arena.

ss

jigray3

11-13-04, 04:56 PM

I looked long and hard at the Toshiba, JVC, Panasonic, and Sony. If it had been close at all, I would gladly have spent less money, but for me the Sony was dramatically better. The Toshiba was a distant second and was $600 less, but I couldn't make myself settle.

STEAMHL2

11-13-04, 05:37 PM

I'd say the Sony KD-34XBR960 if you want the best of 34" CRT HDTV. It is consistantly rated above the others in terms of DVD display quality and quality in general.

I have the 32HS420 4:3 HDTV model and it is better than any other comparable display I have seen. If you want the absolute best, Sony is the way to go.

Joxer

11-13-04, 10:18 PM

The Sony 34XBR960 significantly beats the Toshiba. The Sony's super-fine-pitch HD CRT is unique, none of the other manufactures have it. The Sony has 1400 horizontal resolution, the others more like 850 or so. A big difference. Sony is worth the higher price in this case.

subysouth

11-13-04, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Joxer
The Sony 34XBR960 significantly beats the Toshiba. The Sony's super-fine-pitch HD CRT is unique, none of the other manufactures have it. The Sony has 1400 horizontal resolution, the others more like 850 or so. A big difference. Sony is worth the higher price in this case.

The Sony has ~1105x623 and the others have ~ 917x517.

The Sony has a somewhat better resolution, but its not earth-shatteringly better and the Sony isnt using it any better than the other off-the-shelf consumer models.

ss

CrocHunter

11-14-04, 12:59 AM

But SONY does set the standard for direct view picture quality.

If your looking for the best picture quality, go SONY.

Your're not just paying more money because it's a SONY, your're paying for the better picture quality.

Toshiba comes close to SONY in picture quality, i'd say either the 34hfx84 or one of the 3 sony models.The xs955,hs420, and xbr960 all are very good sets and are well worth the money.

ZedX3

11-14-04, 01:02 AM

Sony KD-34XBR960.

end of discussion.

dt_dc

11-14-04, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by subysouth
The Sony has ~1105x623 and the others have ~ 917x517.and you pulled these numbers from ...

Artwood

11-14-04, 01:29 AM

His donkey!

subysouth

11-14-04, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by dt_dc
and you pulled these numbers from ...

The Sony Super Fine pitch number is based on a pitch of .68mm(the lowest ever in a large format CRT) and the other is based on .82mm found on the Panasonic and several other tubes. And those numbers are always judged as optimistically as possible. They are probably both worse than that when considering the lower pixel density at the screen edges.

Of course you guys can continue to believe its whatever you want. I mean I'm sure its possible that that Sony could have 1400 in horizontal res. Lots of things are possible.:p

ss

subysouth

11-14-04, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by ZedX3
Sony KD-34XBR960.

end of discussion.

If you lack other skills you would be correct, its not the best picture that can be pulled from a 34" CRT tho. If Sony allowed you to drive it with a computer input you might be correct.

ss

subysouth

11-14-04, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by CrocHunter
But SONY does set the standard for direct view picture quality.

If your looking for the best picture quality, go SONY.

Your're not just paying more money because it's a SONY, your're paying for the better picture quality.

Toshiba comes close to SONY in picture quality, i'd say either the 34hfx84 or one of the 3 sony models.The xs955,hs420, and xbr960 all are very good sets and are well worth the money.

You know I like Sony products, but thats quite a sweeping statement. Sony makes a great product in their screen, but the way they have packaged it doesnt use its potential to its fullest. If they would allow you to drive it at its highest TRUE resolution progessively, I would wholeheartedly agree.

If you mean sets the standard in high volume easy to use direct-view CRTs I would agree too. But that failure allowing a custom computer input resolution handicaps them vs other so equipped products.

ss

SebCanadaCEO

11-14-04, 06:37 AM

I have Toshiba's 34HFX84 and I think it's the best of the lot! The picture is outstanding, especially with DVD's!!! It does accept 720p signals (through HDMI input) but downconverts it to 540p. It also upconverts 480p signals to 540p. Through "component" input, you can watch DVD's at 540p or 1080i (your preferance).

It also has "indepedent input memory" and 2 HDMI inputs!!!

(This set also has one of the best "red levels" I have ever seen! Unlike most TV's, it practicaly doesn't push any reds).

subysouth

11-14-04, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by SebCanadaCEO
I have Toshiba's 34HFX84 and I think it's the best of the lot! The picture is outstanding, especially with DVD's!!! It does accept 720p signals (through HDMI input) but downconverts it to 540p. It also upconverts 480p signals to 540p. Through "component" input, you can watch DVD's at 540p or 1080i (your preferance).

It also has "indepedent input memory" and 2 HDMI inputs!!!

(This set also has one of the best "red levels" I have ever seen! Unlike most TV's, it practicaly doesn't push any reds).

Hold the phone!

I was unaware there was a set left driving at 540p. Will it drive 1080i at 540p too? A 34" set at 540p is likely to trump a 620 line unit trying to do 1080i. If so, even sight unseen, I am thinking you have a winner there.

I am gonna trot off and do some reading, thanks for the heads up.

ss

Rolando A

11-14-04, 09:20 PM

Well I had pretty much gotten sold on the 34HFX84 but after hearing about geometry issues and such got a little scared.

Also wondering if the XBR960 is available in Montreal/Canada and where?

subysouth

11-14-04, 09:34 PM

I did the reading and on the all inputs -> 540p support alone I would put the Toshibas at the top of my list. I cant overstate how important that is in performance of one of these 34" sets. Thats a progressive rate reasonably close to the sets native rate.

I have been also searching to see if I missed any other big name sets that are doing 540p in a significant way. The only other hit I am getting is Panasonic Canada on the 34" set thats the same model as the US version.

http://www.panasonic.ca/English/audiovideo/television/tau/ct30_34wx54.asp

The US site says 1080i/480p only. Anyone know if the Panny does 540p and if so with what inputs?

ss

triggle

11-14-04, 10:55 PM

XBR CRTs don't seem to be available in Canada any more. At least they are not listed in the Sony.ca web site. There are no more 40" either. The top line wide screen is the FD WEGA KD34XS955. I don't know how this compares to the XBR but they are claiming it can do 720p. This set is around 3k. If the XBR is a better set it may make sence buying a US model.
It is a full 1k more than a similar Panny here in Canada.

I am at a similar junction considering the purchase of a widescreen. I've checked out DLPs but the displays I looked at have geometry problems on PC input. This will be a big use for this set, so it'll have to be good. Also I don't like fans and motors whining away. Geez I was in Futureshop the other day and could hear the color wheel motor on a RCA Scenium from 15 feet away in a busy store. Just what you want in your bedroom !

Frustrated

Drew_veloce

11-14-04, 10:56 PM

I've never seen a picture as good (in the showroom) on a direct-view as good as that of the KD34XBR960. It's amazing.

SebCanadaCEO

11-15-04, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Rolando A
Well I had pretty much gotten sold on the 34HFX84 but after hearing about geometry issues and such got a little scared.

Mine have very little to no geometry issues at all! Just a tad in the bottom left corner... Almost not noticeable!

rd001

11-15-04, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by subysouth
The Sony has ~1105x623 and the others have ~ 917x517.

The Sony has a somewhat better resolution, but its not earth-shatteringly better and the Sony isnt using it any better than the other off-the-shelf consumer models.I'm quite intrigued by your posts on CRT resolution in various threads. To me, this is a key point that is too often ignored in these discussion of the merits of various technologies and the sets from OEMs which use them.

Can you provide any info or links on how we can find the true resolution of a particular CRT display. For instance, I've read the claims on the forum about the 1400 horiz. lines on the high-end Sony. Yet, you saying ~1105x623 so I'm curious where you get this info.

It's very hard to find unambiguous info from the manufacturers which tell us the true resolution. This makes me think that they are all deficient to, say, a 720p LCD or a 1080i/p plasma/LCD display.

It seems to me that this is a vital difference. If you upscale an input source that is 720p, then a TV scaling this to a 1400 horiz. resolution will do far better at including all the detail than would a TV that only has 1105. Also, if the Sony does have the true 1400 lines of resolution, you should get a usable 1280p computer display on it as well, far more useful than sets which have lower resolution.

More info, please.

dt_dc

11-15-04, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by subysouth
The Sony Super Fine pitch number is based on a pitch of .68mm(the lowest ever in a large format CRT) and the other is based on .82mm found on the Panasonic and several other tubes. And those numbers are always judged as optimistically as possible. They are probably both worse than that when considering the lower pixel density at the screen edges.

Of course you guys can continue to believe its whatever you want. I mean I'm sure its possible that that Sony could have 1400 in horizontal res. Lots of things are possible.Which raises the following questions / comments:

1) It is impossible to calculate the number of horizontal lines (vertical resolution) of an aperture grill based CRT (like a Sony Trinitron tube) based on stripe pitch. Doing so shows a lack of understanding about CRT technology ... and the difference between an aperture grill and shadow mask. So ... where do you get the vertical resolution numbers quoted above for the Sony?

Vertical resolution on an aperture grill should be the same as the CRT's scan rate ... unless you have some info to the contrary.

2) Where do you get a .68mm stripe pitch for the Sony? What's this based on? Some other manufacturer has made a set with a .68mm dot pitch so therefore the Sony has a .68mm stripe pitch?

3) I believe the common quoted horizontal resolution numbers (vertical lines) on this board of 1401 for "Super Fine Pitch" and 847 for the other FD Trinitron Sony models came from articles like the following:By comparison, the current 34W-inch XBR Hi-Scan monitor offers 847 lines of vertical resolution, while the new Super Fine Pitch model will offer 1,401 vertical lines.Source: http://print.google.com/print/doc?articleid=y09R1zkMSu7
Article also available here (requires subscription): http://www.twice.com/article/CA269544.html?display=News

bob53

11-15-04, 02:59 PM

I have to respectfully agree with anyone who thinks Sony has the best looking CRT based TV... Although they pulled out of the US market 2 weeks ago, you can probably still find a few NIB sets from a company called Loewe... Far and away sthe best CRT TV's you will ever see, Sony, Panny, Samsung, Toshiba - none even get close... Read the reviews... They start at 2000.00 for the Aventos 30" 19:9 and the 38" 16:9 Aconda went for around 3500.00. In terms of natural color rendition, grayscale (best seen on B&W movies), motion, and depth I have never seen a TV that compares with a Loewe TV set. The image actually takes on a depth and dimensionality that must be seen. Mine just went kaput but I was remodeling and I assume that I damaged the mainboard via too much dust... I hope I can repair mine as anything else will be a distant second.

-Bob

ccallana

11-15-04, 03:44 PM

Take a good look at the JV 34WP84 - Thats what I ended up with. I saw it side by side with the XBR910 and thought the Sony look way too soft. Thats just me of course, and I was highly motivated by the size (Sony's are just too big). The JVC has been an awesome set - Especially for DVD and HD. It's not awesome at analog cable - but does well enough.

subysouth

11-15-04, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by rd001
I'm quite intrigued by your posts on CRT resolution in various threads. To me, this is a key point that is too often ignored in these discussion of the merits of various technologies and the sets from OEMs which use them.

Can you provide any info or links on how we can find the true resolution of a particular CRT display. For instance, I've read the claims on the forum about the 1400 horiz. lines on the high-end Sony. Yet, you saying ~1105x623 so I'm curious where you get this info.

It's very hard to find unambiguous info from the manufacturers which tell us the true resolution. This makes me think that they are all deficient to, say, a 720p LCD or a 1080i/p plasma/LCD display.

It seems to me that this is a vital difference. If you upscale an input source that is 720p, then a TV scaling this to a 1400 horiz. resolution will do far better at including all the detail than would a TV that only has 1105. Also, if the Sony does have the true 1400 lines of resolution, you should get a usable 1280p computer display on it as well, far more useful than sets which have lower resolution.

More info, please.

There are 4 parameters that limit actual resolution on a direct view CRT:

1. Scanning frequency(its ability to light the pixels with the gun in a specified length of time.) 480i=15.75kHz, 480p=31.5kHz, 1080i/540p= 33.75kHz, and 720p=45kHz. As you can see 480p and 1080 are similar in required speed, 720p on the other hand is another pretty significant jump and very difficult to do on large format CRTs(its a lot of sheer line real estate for the gun to cover in 1/60th of a sec.

2. Shadow mask aperature count. Here's where things can get confusing. Sony use vertical slots and most other set manufacturers use individual holes. So techinically the Sonys have no vertical scan line limit imposed by the shadow mask. They do a have a horizontal limit in the number of vertical slits. Other sets are limited in both directions by the hole counts.

3. Beam spot size. The resolution of the set is limited by the size of the bean spot on the electron gun. The set can never have a finer resolution than this spot.

4. Phosphor triad count. The surface of the screen is coated with phosphor triads. Each one of these triads constitutes one pixel. Some set manufacturers try to argue that two different colors of the triad constitute a definable piece of info and would like just 2 colors to represent a pixel thereby increasing "actual resolution" by 50%. I personally dont buy that argument. Phosphor triad spacing is also called pitch(the distance seperating like colored pigments on the screen.) Typically triads are more dense at the center front of the screen because the beam spot is inherently smaller at this point and this is often where pitch is measured(cause thats as good as it gets on the screen.) You can divide the screen dimensions by the pitch to yield pixel approximtate screen resolution, but its usually lower than that because pitch increases towards the perimeter of the screen because the beam spot size increases(flashlight effect.)

Beam spot size and phosphor size are always nearly identical. So pitch is smaller at the center front of the screen and gets widerand/or taller at the edges.

I got my info on the Sony about a year ago and it was a word of mouth bit of info. IIRC I was told the pitch on the Sony was .68mm which is a landmark number in a large CRT and I recall being appropriately impressed. If the screen can actually resolve 1400 lines of horizontal resolution it would have to have .54mm pitch screenwide or probably .45mm at the center and tapering up to .6mm at the edges. Its a function of the way the CRT works that pixels cant be the same size screenwide especially on flat screen CRTs. The flat screen makes the flashlight effect worse. .54mm in itself would be an extraordinary number let alone what would actually be published at .45mm to actually pull off 1400lines horizontally.

Is that making sense?

Unfortunately the Sony isnt even trying to scale to 720p, it only scales HD to 1080i which it actually has LESS chance of doing in terms of actual screen resolution but is the only HD rate the set can muster scanning frequency-wise. It cant do 45kHz required to scan 720p and it cant physically resolve the pixels needed for 1080i, but it can do the 1080i scan rate. Kinda ironic eh?

ss

dt_dc

11-15-04, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by subysouth
I got my info on the Sony about a year ago and it was a word of mouth bit of info.

Is that making sense?Very much so. Sorry about any disparaging comments I made above. This post shows a very good understanding of CRTs :)

So we have word-of-mouth vs. Twice (linked above) and Gary Mearson / The Perfect Vision:
http://www.theperfectvision.com/newsletter/tpv51/sony_kv34xbr910.html

Of course, they could be doing the 'Resolvable lines of resolution' trick. That's always popular with CRTs.

I'm not saying the Sony has 1400 lines ... but I'm also not saying 1100. I'm just saying I like people having sources when they state something so definatively.

Thanks.

subysouth

11-15-04, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by dt_dc
Which raises the following questions / comments:

1) It is impossible to calculate the number of horizontal lines (vertical resolution) of an aperture grill based CRT (like a Sony Trinitron tube) based on stripe pitch. Doing so shows a lack of understanding about CRT technology ... and the difference between an aperture grill and shadow mask. So ... where do you get the vertical resolution numbers quoted above for the Sony?

Vertical resolution on an aperture grill should be the same as the CRT's scan rate ... unless you have some info to the contrary.

2) Where do you get a .68mm stripe pitch for the Sony? What's this based on? Some other manufacturer has made a set with a .68mm dot pitch so therefore the Sony has a .68mm stripe pitch?

3) I believe the common quoted horizontal resolution numbers (vertical lines) on this board of 1401 for "Super Fine Pitch" and 847 for the other FD Trinitron Sony models came from articles like the following:Source: http://print.google.com/print/doc?articleid=y09R1zkMSu7
Article also available here (requires subscription): http://www.twice.com/article/CA269544.html?display=News

1. There are two types of shadow masks, dot masks and slot masks. Sony uses a slot mask and therefore has a theoretically unlimited vert res. It is actually limited also by phosphor triad count and beam spot size in vertical resolution though. It is possible to measure the horizontal resolution on the Sony by using the three parameters of beam spot size, triad count and slot count, anyone can fully limit the resolution on its own.

2. Word of mouth. I beleive it to be true but you dont have to beleive me. Joel Brinkley agrees but Gary syas he counted slots at 1400(which is only one of the things that can limit resolution.) When you start doing the numbers on what the pitch would have to be to pull off 1400 horizontal, I am even more comfortable with my numbers. I stand by my estimate of ~1100 ACTUAL horizontal resolution. If I had the set I could end the speculation on the phosphor count, the beam spot size would still be a bit of an unknown but you could guess it would coincide pretty closely with pitch.

3. As above, I am gonna run with what I have been told and generally know about CRTs. The pitch required to pull those numbers off would be so extraordinary, if I was Sony I'd be bragging about it to no end - and they arent. They havent published actual res numbers or even an "optimistic" front center pitch number. Until I see Sony pony up to some actual numbers or the kind of definitive tests required to pin down resolution on the set, I'm gonna give the Sony a lot of benefit of the doubt, just not that far.

In those 847 and 1400 numbers they are cutting themselves lower than others have on the front and higher than I think reason allows on the back. Can you think of any reason they might be motivated to exaggerate these numbers? And again if theyre hanging their hat on slit count, thats just part of the game and another point that can tend to exaggerate actual resolution, just like scan rate. Where's pitch and beam spot size?

They are admitting in that same sentence that their non-Super Fine pitch screens were being sold doing 1080i on a screen capable of approximately 850x480. That bit doesnt bother you? And youre ready to take their this years numbers as gospel?

I am suggesting an appropriate amount of skepticism based on the parameters of the tech itself.

ss

subysouth

11-15-04, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by dt_dc
Very much so. Sorry about any disparaging comments I made above. This post shows a very good understanding of CRTs :)

So we have word-of-mouth vs. Twice (linked above) and Gary Mearson / The Perfect Vision:
http://www.theperfectvision.com/newsletter/tpv51/sony_kv34xbr910.html

Of course, they could be doing the 'Resolvable lines of resolution' trick. That's always popular with CRTs.

I'm not saying the Sony has 1400 lines ... but I'm also not saying 1100. I'm just saying I like people having sources when they state something so definatively.

Thanks.

To be fair TWICE is reciting Sony's numbers and Gary likely is too, unless he dismantled his sample and counted slits - which is possible but unlikely.

If I say my set has 1401 vertical slits in its shadow mask I'm not exactly saying its horizontal resolution is 1401. I am saying it could be at least that. Its just like GWB not actually saying Iraq was involved in 9/11, but he implied the hell out of it.

Make sense?

ss

Artwood

11-15-04, 11:59 PM

Why not just count them yourself--that would end the arguments--it's not impossible to do. There are some reasons WHY Sony doesn't tout the 1401 slots. For every 34 inch Widescreen they sell that's one RP LCD that they DON'T sell that would make them much more money. It also makes people wonder why they don't produce CRT Computer displays anymore, but do produce LCD computer displays that haVE both INFERIOR PICTURE QUALITY and HIGHER PRICE. The most guarded dirty little secret is that CRT could be much better than it is. Low pitch numbers are not technically unfeasible as the manufacturers would have you believe. Sony achieved them in 24-inch computer displays. You might not could get them that small in larger displays, but you COULD get them a whole lot smaller than what most people think.

What really IRKS the CRT haters and the new technology Industry Plants is the FACT that Sony's 1401 slots will forever be better than Plasma's 1366. From time to time they enlist someone like subysouth to trash the resolution of Sony's best Direct-view display. I'm not saying CRT is perfect, but give it it's due. If they would spend more time increasing resolution in all technologies we'd be better off--and you know EVEN if I can't see the resolution I'm glad it's there. Anyone who knows the difference between 14Kt. and 18Kt. knows what I'm talking about!

subysouth

11-16-04, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Artwood
Why not just count them yourself--that would end the arguments--it's not impossible to do. There are some reasons WHY Sony doesn't tout the 1401 slots. For every 34 inch Widescreen they sell that's one RP LCD that they DON'T sell that would make them much more money. It also makes people wonder why they don't produce CRT Computer displays anymore, but do produce LCD computer displays that haVE both INFERIOR PICTURE QUALITY and HIGHER PRICE. The most guarded dirty little secret is that CRT could be much better than it is. Low pitch numbers are not technically unfeasible as the manufacturers would have you believe. Sony achieved them in 24-inch computer displays. You might not could get them that small in larger displays, but you COULD get them a whole lot smaller than what most people think.

What really IRKS the CRT haters and the new technology Industry Plants is the FACT that Sony's 1401 slots will forever be better than Plasma's 1366. From time to time they enlist someone like subysouth to trash the resolution of Sony's best Direct-view display. I'm not saying CRT is perfect, but give it it's due. If they would spend more time increasing resolution in all technologies we'd be better off--and you know EVEN if I can't see the resolution I'm glad it's there. Anyone who knows the difference between 14Kt. and 18Kt. knows what I'm talking about!

Somebody just went off the deep end.

For those of you in the peanut gallery, counting the slits is just one of the parts of resolution. Sony has never claimed 1400 horizontal, theyve implied alot. "65% more res than earlier models" What earlier models

I am not trashing CRTs, I am being realistic. I have stated numerous times I think its all but pointless for a CRT to be asked to do 1080i, they arent big enough to justify it unless you plan on putting your nose to the screen. I dont even like 1080i, I like progressive scanning. The only reason theyre pushing 1080i is the easier scan rate. I'd be thrilled if they built a 600p set, but it wouldnt be HD and consumers who dont know better would think theyre getting short-changed.

And if you spent more time reading and less time spouting paranoia you might find there are legitimate reasons CRTs arent bigger and dont have finer pitches on large screens.

Yea I work for the "black suit" guys who want you to buy expensive stuff. Thats why I have told several people to buy the below cost Daewoo ED at CompUSA. I can see why you rank several peoples ignore list. Youre kinda annoying.

ss

dt_dc

11-16-04, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by subysouth
To be fair TWICE is reciting Sony's numbers and Gary likely is too, unless he dismantled his sample and counted slits - which is possible but unlikely.

If I say my set has 1401 vertical slits in its shadow mask I'm not exactly saying its horizontal resolution is 1401.

Make sense?No. You said earlier that you were basing your resolution numbers on pitch. Stripe pitch measures ... vertical slits on an aperture grill.

Now you're saying that stripe pitch isn't an accurate measurement of resolution ... that's just one part of the equation. So again ... what are your numbers above based on?

Also, Sony Trinitrons use an aperture grill ... NOT a shadow mask (or slot mask).

dt_dc

11-16-04, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by subysouth
Joel Brinkley agreesAs to the Joel Brinkley review ...
1) The only signal tests he performed was with the Video Essentials DVD. No HD signal generator ... no Digital Video Essestials ...The picture was incredibly sharp. To test this, I went immediately to the frequency-sweep pattern on the Video Essentials DVD.From this he's able to guess the KV-34XBR910's resolution is 1080 lines by something in the range of 1000–1200 pixelsYou'd think when reviewing an HD set you'd get some sort of HD calibration screens ... but I guess not.

2) One outright error.Also included are one DVI/HDCP input and two component inputs. Only one of the latter can accept high-definition signals.
2 component (one accepts up to 480p, the other up to 1080i)Blatantly incorrect. Both component inputs accect 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.

3) Another bad mistake.The KV-34XBR910 displays all high-definition programming at 1080i unless its Digital Reality Creation (DRC) scaler is set to Progressive—in which case the display is 540p.DRC isn't used for high definition signals. DRC settings have no effect on high definition signals. The differences between the set's native display rates (480p, 960i, and 1080i) are clearly visible on screen. 720p is clearly displayed at a 1080i scan rate.

4) That brings up another point. He never mentions the set's native scan rates. Who would do a CRT review and never mention native scan rates?

5) Another slight mistakeIn addition, DRC scales 480i signals to 960i480i is scaled to 480p or 960i dependant on DRC setting.

6) Didn't adjust red push out of the set. Easily fixed in calibration. It's certainly worth noting that set comes with red push ... and fixing it requires calibration (service menu). However ... to write a review and NOT do that ...

7) Another minor mistake.the KV-34XBR910 does not let you set up customized picture settings for each of its seven inputsIt's certainly not easy ... but each input can be individually calibrated. Worth noting ... however to say it's impossible is an error.

Don't even get me started on the following:The set's DRC scaler was quite good. Interlace artifacts were visible in particularly difficult scenes—flags waving, diagonal white lines on football fields, etc.—but almost completely absent at other times. On a continuum of 1 to 10, with an outboard Faroudja processor at the top, I give the Sony's scaler a score of eight.Very detailed ...

Joel Brinkley has some good insight on the legal / political side of HDTV (and a few other topics). However, he is NOT particularly accomplished when it comes to the actual equipment.

Honestly ... compare this review to Merson's. Compare the two's reputations. Which one do you want to look to for a more informed opinion?

xrox

11-16-04, 09:46 AM

dt_dc,

If the HD models can't even resolve 1080 scan lines in the full screen area it has (I have no idea if they can or can't) then what benefit would having "vertical squeeze" for 1080i signals be? Essentially it is putting the 1080 lines in a smaller area so if it can't even resolve them in the full area what happens then? Or maybe 1080 lines is fully resolved?

Or is my thinking on this wrong?

Cheers :)

rd001

11-16-04, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Artwood
... It also makes people wonder why they don't produce CRT Computer displays anymore, but do produce LCD computer displays that haVE both INFERIOR PICTURE QUALITY and HIGHER PRICE. The most guarded dirty little secret is that CRT could be much better than it is.

...

What really IRKS the CRT haters and the new technology Industry Plants is the FACT that Sony's 1401 slots will forever be better than Plasma's 1366. From time to time they enlist someone like subysouth to trash the resolution of Sony's best Direct-view display.

I agree that they're pushing LCD for profit motive, not because of its inherent quality. And certainly, CRT could be further improved as has so often been demonstrated.

As far as subysouth being an 'industry plant' of some anti-Sony coalition, I see no evidence of it. Just someone who is cynical about the unsubstantated claims of every manufacturer, not just Sony. Even if he were an industry plant by some nefarious anti-Sony corporate conspiracy, he still has to demonstrate his knowledge here against many others who are also quite knowledgable. I say let it be debated. In fact, I'd dearly love to see an extended debate on a sticky thread of its own where these issues of native resolution and viewing distance and the effects of digital scaling are examined thoroughly. And such a thread would be a service to the entire community. So, let the debate go on. The facts will emerge. What impresses me about subysouth's comments and those of others here is that we're finally discussing the marketing claims and fabrications of the various manufacturers as measured against their actual performance in 480i/480p/720p/1080i in present OTA/DVD/cable performance. And that is a vital discussion for many people looking to purchase but confused by the marketing hype. People like me.

Something that you don't seem to account for is that subysouth doesn't seem to advocate that strongly for any given brand in preference to the Sony. One might say he tips toward the Toshiba 34 but he readily acknowledges its drawbacks and marketing hype as well. It seems like a pretty honest debate.

So are you suggesting that subysouth is a Toshiba plant or a plant of a coalitiion of all the manufacturers about whom he makest even the slightest positive comment?

...and you know EVEN if I can't see the resolution I'm glad it's there.This is by far your oddest comment. Why should anyone be paying the premium price for quality if it doesn't really exist or if its advantages are greatly overrated? Or merely somewhat overrated as subysouth seems to opine? Isn't subysouth driving directly at the point of the merits of the sets and the value they represent in comparison to their price and as compared to the best offereings from other manufacturers, all as measured against the various commonly used HD/SD/NTSC broadcast/media standards? It seems that way to my reading.

Artwood

11-16-04, 04:08 PM

I am suggesting that it would be in the sales interest of the Video display Industry that phased out Computer direct-view CRTs in favour of LCDs that have BOTH less Picture Quality and HIGHER prices to employ people(I'm not saying subysouth) to trash Direct-view CRT as it phases it out in favour of Rear Projection LCD on the most viewed enthusiast forum. Is it beyond the mind of man to entertain that possibility? Does it automatically brand someone as paranoid to state such?

Artwood

11-16-04, 04:10 PM

Is it odd to use the 14Kt 18Kt analogy when audiophiles everyday advocate higher audio performance which in many cases can not be heard? Why is it OK for them to advocate that when it come to hearing, but not be OK for me to advocate that when it comes to what one sees in a Video display?

Artwood

11-16-04, 04:14 PM

Is it beyond the mind of man to think that if the Video buying public were cynical enough to believe that there weren't big differences among technologies and models that they might be inclined to buy inferior ones which would net that Industry profits? How many people out there believe that Daewoo and the Sony XBR 960 are in the same leagues performance wise?

Artwood

11-16-04, 04:16 PM

What I'd like to know to be fair to subysouth is which model and what resolution and at what distance he think the greatest TV in the world is? I ask that not to argue with him, but to see where he' coming from. Does subysouth believe that resolution has progressed as far as our eyes are able to discern and that ONLY other Picture Quality elements are important?

Artwood

11-16-04, 04:19 PM

I'm sorry if my comments annoy some people and sorry that they may cause me to be put on some peoples ignore lists, but I for one am adult enough to read other people's views that ANNOY me and try to learn from them. I would never put anyone on my Ignore list. I'm sorry for being to big a person for that!

ccallana

11-16-04, 04:35 PM

Well, as long as we are putting on the table resolution talk - (and the fact that there hasn't been a good thread on it for several months) - what about JVC's claim of upscaling to 1500i? I think its really more of a 720 doubled kind of thing - But I don't really have a way to test that.

dt_dc

11-16-04, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by ccallana
what about JVC's claim of upscaling to 1500i?It would be interesting to see an in-depth review of a JVC 1500i model.

Digitally scaling to 1500i should be do-able. Having the CRT scan at 1500i should be do-able (although some may argue that ... since apparantly actually scanning at 1080i is debatable). The trick is ... how's the scaling happening and what's happening in the CRT.

My gut is that ... it has certain benefits ... and it has certain disadvantages. Some calibration tests will show improvements ... some will show a weakness. Some content will look better ... some will look worse.

Isn't that always where these threads end up?

Artwood

11-16-04, 05:40 PM

The most illusive mysterious unfathomable number in the universe is actual pixels dislplayed. It is guarded more than Fort Knox or Area 51 for the simple reason that the manufacturers DON'T want the Video buying public to be concretely able to OBJECTIVELY compare displays. Many times I have asked the question: With the most perfect signal generating equipment on planet earth and produced with the highest resolution cameras on earth with the displays calibrated by the best calibrators on earth: what is the EXACT number of Pixels displayed by the Sony 34XBR960. the Mitsubishi 73615, and the Fujitsu P50? I've never gotten those EXACT numbers. I bet I never will. Maybe subysouth is right and in actual everyday broadcasting that the numbers are much lower than 1920X1080. Maybe if I die and go to heaven God will tell me what those EXACT numbers are. As long as there is a Video Display Industry that wants to keep the Video Consumer in the dark so they can sell more sets and as long as they have people in that Industry that will support and cover for them dying is the only way I'll ever know.

P.S. I'm not suicidal. Sometimes I say I'd die to have the best display on earth, but I make do and enjoy what I have. Cheers!

xrox

11-16-04, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Artwood
The most illusive mysterious unfathomable number in the universe is actual pixels dislplayed. It is guarded more than Fort Knox or Area 51 for the simple reason that the manufacturers DON'T want the Video buying public to be concretely able to OBJECTIVELY compare displays. Many times I have asked the question: With the most perfect signal generating equipment on planet earth and produced with the highest resolution cameras on earth with the displays calibrated by the best calibrators on earth: what is the EXACT number of Pixels displayed by the Sony 34XBR960. the Mitsubishi 73615, and the Fujitsu P50? I've never gotten those EXACT numbers. I bet I never will. Maybe subysouth is right and in actual everyday broadcasting that the numbers are much lower than 1920X1080. Maybe if I die and go to heaven God will tell me what those EXACT numbers are.

IMO it is tough to even use the word pixels to describe what is happening in a CRT. Take a look under magnification and you'll see that unlike a "fixed pixel" device there is partial exitation of phosphor dots. For instance it might take 1.36 phosphor dots to make a period (text).

I guess it is tought to distinguish between phosphor triads(pixels) and signal(pixels) as they seem to almost never match in a CRT as far as I can see with my handheld scope.

Maybe that is why you don't hear the word pixels much with CRTs?

Cheers

ccallana

11-16-04, 07:44 PM

I have a really good PDF from JVC that explains DIST - but its 9MB :) Once I get my site up, I'll post a link - it may go to answer many of the questions about it.

Artwood

11-16-04, 08:13 PM

Let me put it this way: Is it simpy IMPOSSIBLE to quantify resolution? I don't think so. I believe it can be measured. Horespower can be measured. Why can't resolution be measured?

Geise

11-16-04, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Artwood
Let me put it this way: Is it simpy IMPOSSIBLE to quantify resolution? I don't think so. I believe it can be measured. Horespower can be measured. Why can't resolution be measured?

Who said it can't be measured? I think it's more a matter of the tools needed to measure it are non-existent or not easily had.

Artwood

11-16-04, 09:24 PM

Maybe it's a matter of the people who have the tools to measure it are beholden to the Video Display Industry that doesn't want those measurements known.

subysouth

11-16-04, 10:01 PM

Art, no harm no foul, I'll just say you have an odd way of wording things. I dont have anyone on my ignore list for the record.

Some bits:

Someone noted my statement earlier about calling Sony's shadow mask a slot mask being incorrect. That is correct. The aperture grille and slot mask are so similar in my mind I interchange them and thats not exactly correct. Theyre close cousins. The dot mask is barely related. There are actually three types of shadow masks - dot mask, slot mask, and aperature grille. Generally speaking the aperature grille allows more picture signal to pass but it also doesnt define seperate triad info nearly as well.

Pixel vs resolution - The finest resolvable portion of a CRT screen is a single phosphor triad or stripe triad. A pixel is a screen measure of undefined actual resolution. A pixel for instance could be 1.56 triads horizontally. If the screen is built precisely the scan line should only be one line of phosphors tall. The beam spot of the gun should not activate anything more than one line vertically. So a sub screen height multiple of scanning lines(the added scans lines dont add up to screen height) should leave black used lines in between - "scan lines." However, CRTs do have the ability to address portion of triads seperately horizontally because thats the direction of the scan.

IMO the simplest and best CRT that could ever be produced would have exactly one phosphor triad or phosphor strip for each pixel fed into it and all resolutions would be scaled to that native actual resolution. A 1:1 relationship between the finest resolvable portion and its only rate it will display. The best incarnation IMO of a CRT, like a plasma is a fixed resolution CRT - fixed pixel if you will. [In reality thats hard to do because pixel density changes across the screen, its non linear. And the distance to the gun changes to and the beam disperses more at the edges. (Art are you catching these problems with making big CRTs?) So most CRTs have circuitry that boosts voltage disparity at the edges to compensate for the more dispersed beam at the edges vs the center.] Back to my ideal CRT, I would set the pixel size appropriately for my viewing distance(say .85mm) I would employ a dot mask or slot mask instead of an aperature grille(cause I am giving it a good pixel size anyway and I want precise control of those large triad pixels that a dot or slot mask offers) and I would at least fix as linear as possible the vertical lines dimensions(vertical lines especially on widescreen sets dont ahve as much deflection angle.)

It would turn out to be a 34" CRT running about 920x540 of actual resolution and everything would get scaled to that rate. Because maintaing a "pure" signal IMO is trumped by seeing the images at the correct size and a full screen resolution for X distance. And that would make me happy if I were viewing at 8'. The only way to get that currently is a computer addressable CRT and a HTPC. Or this Toshiba if it will do the 540p trick on all inputs. The problem is I'm not sitting at 8'. Thats why I am now looking for a little larger display, likely a 42" ED plasma with its inherent compromises.

Viewing distance trumps all and size does matter in HT. Youre not gonna get a HT experience out of a 34" CRT at 10', no matter how good the resolution. If youre closer 34" sets are certainly viable.

ss

On a side note a quality 34" CRT EDTV might not be a bad alternative either. Does such a set exist?

edit: bad speeling

subysouth

11-16-04, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Artwood
Let me put it this way: Is it simpy IMPOSSIBLE to quantify resolution? I don't think so. I believe it can be measured. Horespower can be measured. Why can't resolution be measured?

You can define maximum vertical and horizontal resolution but its hard to do, not impossible though. The pitch of the screen varies across and up and down the screen. It would take a solid paragraph to fully explain a CRTs actual display, not a simple 1280x720 for instance.

Thats a plus of flat panel displays, they maintain(or should) color, brightness and pitch/pixel size across the entire screen. Their resolution can be defined very simply.

ss

Artwood

11-17-04, 12:39 PM

subysouth: how much better would your ideal TV be than the ones that are currently out there? What is the best HTPC/computer addressable CRT you've ever seen? I'd like to see that set up with a Sony GDM-FW900 24-inch monitor. How good of a resolution could you gewt out of that? I am in agreement with you on one point--you need larger sizes for maximum resolution to be perceptible at further seating distances. I think the Fujitsu P50 Plasma and the Mitsubishi 73615 RP CRT with 9-inch guns probably do the best resolution wise. What are two or three of your resolution champ models for the distance that you want to sit at?

subysouth

11-18-04, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Artwood
subysouth: how much better would your ideal TV be than the ones that are currently out there? What is the best HTPC/computer addressable CRT you've ever seen? I'd like to see that set up with a Sony GDM-FW900 24-inch monitor. How good of a resolution could you gewt out of that? I am in agreement with you on one point--you need larger sizes for maximum resolution to be perceptible at further seating distances. I think the Fujitsu P50 Plasma and the Mitsubishi 73615 RP CRT with 9-inch guns probably do the best resolution wise. What are two or three of your resolution champ models for the distance that you want to sit at?

At ten feet I really need a .9-1mm(maybe even slightly larger) pixel size. That takes full 1280x720 and 1920x1080 to 58" and 87" respectively diagonally. Not even remotely on my radar pricewise at this point for any device I am interested in short of a FP rig. (I have already have a VW10HT at my disposal.) My needs right now are for a bedroom setup. I dont know what it is, maybe my age but I am finding we are watching more movies in bed. That pixel size and a reasonable screen size pretty much exactly means a 42" ED plasma.

An ED 34" CRT would offer less screen and a smaller pixel size, but might be worth a look as might a 540p 34" set. CRTs are still the image kings IMO. If only they were bigger......

My biggest concerns about plasmas at this point are motion playback.

The Sony computer monitor you mention would be awesome up close, at 10' not so much.

Distance/vision trumps everything.

ss

Rolando A

11-18-04, 08:47 AM

Wow, this is a great discussion. thank you all for so much for your input (though obviously at this point none of it is really for my benefit anymore :D)

now subysouth, or anyone, what size should I consider if my sitting area or couch is somewhere between 8' and 10'. Will the 34" be too small?

I am also considering a 51" (likely the Tosh 51HX84) but I fear it might actually be TOO BIG for the distance. I think max distance I can get rearranging some stuff is approx. 12'. Too close right?

Probably 47" would be ideal but I cannot find one that really does it for me. As bad as it may sound, I actually dislike them because 1) most are silver and I lean towards black (I know, silly reason) and 2) many are quite low, below eye level and would require a "base" or "stand" which brings their price almost to the cost of a 51" (or close enough).

thoughts...

subysouth

11-18-04, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Rolando A
Wow, this is a great discussion. thank you all for so much for your input (though obviously at this point none of it is really for my benefit anymore :D)

now subysouth, or anyone, what size should I consider if my sitting area or couch is somewhere between 8' and 10'. Will the 34" be too small?

I am also considering a 51" (likely the Tosh 51HX84) but I fear it might actually be TOO BIG for the distance. I think max distance I can get rearranging some stuff is approx. 12'. Too close right?

Probably 47" would be ideal but I cannot find one that really does it for me. As bad as it may sound, I actually dislike them because 1) most are silver and I lean towards black (I know, silly reason) and 2) many are quite low, below eye level and would require a "base" or "stand" which brings their price almost to the cost of a 51" (or close enough).

thoughts...

You set your pixel size based on viewing distance. Figure if you have average vision a pixel size of .9mm at 8' is about right. So as you can see if the pixel resolution goes up significantly the size of the screen needs to increase to maintain a constant pixel size. The relationship is linear. At 16' you need a pixel size of about 1.8mm. At 4' feet you need a pixel size of .45mm. And those are average your vision will change it.

Using those number you can calculate what a screen size at x distance and y resolution would need to be. You will be working in screen widths and heights and generally assuming square pixels although sometimes they are not. If you have to chose which measure to use to set your distance in a non-square pixel device, pick the horizontal measure.

Mutiples for screens:

For 4:3 screens multiply diagonal viewable by .8 for width and .6 for height.

For 16:9 screens multiply diagonal by .87 for width and .49 for height.

So at 8' for instance a 1280x720 16:9 device would need to measure 1152mm(1280x.9) by 648mm(720x.9) or 45.4"x25.5" or 52.1" diagonally

An average 34" "HD" crt(actually doing more like 960x540) would work fine at 7'.

The newest Sony screens at 1400 of horizontal res would best be viewed at ~5'.

A 42"ED plasma at 10' would work pretty well.

The 51HX84 would be too SMALL at both 10 or 12' IF its actually doing 1080i. It would be too large at 8' for 480p. See the inherent problems of these "multi-scan" tvs?

ss

Rolando A

11-18-04, 09:46 PM

The 51HX84 would be too SMALL at both 10 or 12' IF its actually doing 1080i. It would be too large at 8' for 480p. See the inherent problems of these "multi-scan" tvs?

subysouth

I love your input and appreciate your posts. However I think you just confused me.

Which set should I go for then?

subysouth

11-19-04, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Rolando A
subysouth

I love your input and appreciate your posts. However I think you just confused me.

Which set should I go for then?

I wouldnt want to recommend a specific set because some many subjective things play on set choice BUT in general my ideal set would:

-Display all resolution at its native best rate and finest resolution(all the newer "fixed-pixel" technologies fall into this category or a CRT that you had intimate control of its display and could drive it to its ideal actual resolution.)

-Would have the correct pixel size for the distance I need at its inherent resolution. Thats the interactive part.

-Would look good. Thats the subjective part, each tech has downfalls, decide which best fits your needs.

The first question to answer when picking a set is how far away will you be sitting?

The second question will be how much resolution do you want and how much money can you spend? The higher the resolution the larger the screen will need to be because the pixel size is fixed by your viewing distance. There will be dramatic differences in screen size as you move from 480p to 540p to 720p to 1080i/1080p. If you have multiple possible viewing distances you need to look at your choices at those distances seperately or pick a set with a pixel size in your range and adjust your seating distance to it.

For me right now viewing from 10' the 1.1mm 42" ED plasmas with square pixels fill my bill nicely. I dont want larger as this is a bedroom. My distance fixes my pixel size and my pocketbook and preferences pick the screen size - the resolution is the screen size divided by the pixel size(or real close to it.)

ss