Do smaller CRTs have better image quality than bigger ones?

[lazyboy285]

I'm thinking of selling my Sony 30" KV-30HS420 and getting either the Sony 30" KD-30XS955 or the 34" KD-34XBR960 for the Super Fine Pitch which looks amazing. I would want the XBR since it's bigger, and it's pretty much the very best CRT out there (and possibly ever will be) but the 30" one is much cheaper. I also tend to prefer picture quality over size. In one of IGN's HDTV Q&As, they mentioned that "Above 30", the CRT benefits taper off to a degree." Well, I have noticed that smaller TVs do have a slightly clearer picture than bigger ones, or could my eyes just be fooling me with a eye-distance-from-TV/screen size ratio type thing? If the 30" is indeed technically more clear, I'm definitely getting that one.

[kny3twalker]

the XBR960 looks great, both TVs, the XS955 and XBR960 looked great being watching from under 2 feet if this is a concern

if you want the smaller XS955, get it
I have one and love it as my bedroom TV

both sets will produce a super sharp image IMO

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=kny3twalker]the XBR960 looks great, both TVs, the XS955 and XBR960 looked great being watching from under 2 feet if this is a concern
[/quote]

:eek:

Hi, my name is Eye Strain, how are you doing today? ;)


if you want the smaller XS955, get it
I have one and love it as my bedroom TV

both sets will produce a super sharp image IMO

Great Tv's at any size. :)

[kny3twalker]

Hi, my name is Eye Strain, how are you doing today?

well I can easily watch movies from the foot of my bed or from my desk chair
both which would/could(chair) be under 3 feet from the screen
and I never have an issue with eye strain

I think the further you sit from these TVs, the more eye strain you would have

imagine trying to read from your PC monitor at 5 feet, versus sitting under 2 feet from the screen

[Porcupine2]

This is an interesting question and I believe the answer is very complicated. I will answer in as much detail as I can, but all my thoughts are from self-observation and self-thinking, so don't be 100% certain what I say is right. I think I know what I'm talking about though...

In theory, the bigger the CRT TV, the better the quality can be. There should be no doubt about this. However, in practice this may not be the case for various reasons such as cost, weight, etc.

Any CRT that is scaled up in all 3 dimensions to a larger version of itself will perform exactly the same, except be bigger. In addition, due to being bigger the dot pitch if your screen could be finer relative to screen size, so the quality could in theory be better. But in practice, TV makers often scale up the dot pitch along with the TV screen so in the end they perform the same relative to screen size. This keeps cost under control (cost will still go up but not by as much).

When CRTs scale up in all 3 dimensions they get super huge and heavy fast. A good 20" computer monitor might weigh 60 pounds. But if scaled up in all 3 dimensions to 30" or so, it would weigh 200 pounds and be about 4 feet deep. People will think that is too heavy and too deep, so in practice TV makers these days make shallow tubes that are only 100 pounds. This causes quality (geometry and focus) to suffer, and that is why a 30" TV might be worse than a 20" one.

However, when you compare any two TVs of different (but fairly similar) size that are produced at the same time by the same company, such as the current Sony 30" vs 34" CRT HDTVs, they usually have the exact same design and specifications, being scaled up versions of each other in all 3 dimensions. Therefore their quality is exactly the same, relative to their size. In theory TVs at different sizes shouldn't be scaled versions of each other if you care about weight and depth issues, but for any given time period and company they tend to be because then it is easier to make them and design them.


What IGN meant by their claim (which is absolutely true in a sense) is that if you kept scaling up CRTs in all 3 dimensions far past 30", they would eventually be too heavy to lift or move. To combat this, larger CRTs such as 40" or 50" (IF they were to be made, which they aren't currently) would probably be made shallower and lighter. But then the quality would suffer unacceptably.

However you don't have to worry when comparing the 30" vs 34" Sony because it's the same company and same time period design, so they are just 3-dimensional scaled versions of each other, and perform exactly the same relative to size.

[Jim Hef]

[QUOTE=Porcupine2]...In theory, the bigger the CRT TV, the better the quality can be. There should be no doubt about this....[/QUOTE]
I would argue that a smaller screen would have the best picture quality, based on there being the same content projected, and the better dot pitch of a smaller display.

[Porcupine2]

Smaller displays will generally have a smaller dot pitch than a larger one but everything must be considered *relative to size*. A 20" TV with a dot pitch of 0.20 is the same as a 30" TV with a dot pitch of 0.30. Generally speaking TV screens have the same dot pitch relative to their size. But in theory it is actually the larger CRT that could have the better dot pitch relative to size (if you made a 30" TV with a dot pitch of 0.20, for example).

[justsc]

It all depends on the signal being received. With SD material, the larger the screen the the poorer the fidelity as noice and artifacts are exposed.

With HD, the larger the better. With smaller screens it's difficult to resolve all the pixels/lines.

[Myke256]

You won't see any loss in PQ going from 30" to 34". I was just in Best Buy and they had the 30" and 34" HS right next to each other. Looked identical. Both displaying HD footage and looking great.

[lzzy]

[QUOTE=lazyboy285]I'm thinking of selling my Sony 30" KV-30HS420 and getting either the Sony 30" KD-30XS955 or the 34" KD-34XBR960 for the Super Fine Pitch which looks amazing. I would want the XBR since it's bigger, and it's pretty much the very best CRT out there (and possibly ever will be) but the 30" one is much cheaper. I also tend to prefer picture quality over size. In one of IGN's HDTV Q&As, they mentioned that "Above 30", the CRT benefits taper off to a degree." Well, I have noticed that smaller TVs do have a slightly clearer picture than bigger ones, or could my eyes just be fooling me with a eye-distance-from-TV/screen size ratio type thing? If the 30" is indeed technically more clear, I'm definitely getting that one.[/QUOTE]

Since you mentioned IGN.com i'm gonna assume that you're probly talking about gaming PQ. And here's another blind assumption that comes from experience and that is that most gamers sit really close to their screens especially when playing FPS (first person shooters). And so if that is the case yes a smaller screen would definately look alot clearer and sharper than a bigger screen of the same quality. Because for gaming it's all about the dot pitch!

Note: this all comes from my own personal (as well as friends) 480i observations from xbox and ps2 where there is a noticeable difference with small changes in screen size playing on SDTV's. I doubt however that there will be a Noticeable difference when playing HD games on 360 and ps3 on HDTV televisions.

[SurfingMatt27]

[QUOTE=justsc]It all depends on the signal being received. With SD material, the larger the screen the the poorer the fidelity as noice and artifacts are exposed.

With HD, the larger the better. With smaller screens it's difficult to resolve all the pixels/lines.[/QUOTE]

I agree, for HDTV.. bigger is better!!!

[williamtassone]

[QUOTE=lazyboy285]
noticed that smaller TVs do have a slightly clearer picture than bigger ones, .[/QUOTE]

I had this same conversation with a Bang &Olufsen rep. I asked him why B&O CRT's max out at 32 inches and he said that "once you go beyond 32 inches the picture starts to break up". Bit like my bank account at the prices he was asking me.

I have noticed this as well. I assume its beacuse the internal scalers of TV's don't process the signal at 1:1 pixel mapping but I really can't be sure.

I had a 20 year old 27 inch Trinitron (made in west germany) and Gladiator looked splendid on it. The same movie on my XBR910 just didn't look as nice (component video in). To this day I don't know why.

[fchall]

Imagine this.
You have a screen covering a window. Consider the wire mesh to be the scan lines of your TV. Now expand that screen to cover a larger window without adding any additional wires. The space between the wires( scan lines ) is going to increase making a fuzzier image.

[williamtassone]

That sounds like a plausible explanation if I could only understand the analogy!

[theroys88]

One of the best PQ I have seen is on the PSP movies. I have to agree that on SD the smaller the screen tends to give you a sharper picture. On my Toshiba split screen the PQ of the boxes is much sharper then the whole screen. Thats on SD material. It is amazing that some movies at the theater are as clear as they considering the size of the screen they are being projected on.

[fchall]

[QUOTE=theroys88]One of the best PQ I have seen is on the PSP movies. I have to agree that on SD the smaller the screen tends to give you a sharper picture. On my Toshiba split screen the PQ of the boxes is much sharper then the whole screen. Thats on SD material. It is amazing that some movies at the theater are as clear as they considering the size of the screen they are being projected on.[/QUOTE]
Not suprising at all since a movie theater screen is not limited by scan lines as a TV is.

Back to the window screen.

First you must understand that on a crt, the picture is painted one line at a time( top to bottom, left to right ) on the screen. Now more scan lines would get a better picture( sort of like pixels in a digital picture ) but there is a standard number of scan lines, we are stuck with on all crt's. No matter how they get painted( interlacing and all that ) or how big the crt is, we are stuck with a specific number of scan lines for all crt's.

Take the vertical wires out of your window screen. Now you have just, can you believe I forgot but lets assume sixty horizontal wires( these represent the pieces of the picture being painted on your TV screen, the scan lines ). The spacing between the wires in the small window will be narrow enough that from a distance you can't see out the window( a sharp picture, all you see is the wires( picture lines ). Now take those same 60 wires and place them(evenly spaced) in a larger window. Now as the spacing between wires( picture lines ) gets larger, you start to see out the window not just the wires( picture lines ) = fuzzy picture.

Hope I made it clearer but I'm not sure. :confused:

This along with physical size ia another limitation on size of CRT TV's.