1080p on 40" my views
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Jez said:
no i did read that.whether the source is stretched or not is irrelevant surely? its the output that matters and as i said, i've found it to be better than sd on any other display ive seen. including the 32" sony wega downstairs
Obviously it has the inevitable drawbacks of eing an lcd, but its kept to a minimum and everything else more than makes up for iti dont believe its that important at all. If you want to get the best from each format then yes, it does matter, but thats impractical. an upscaled dvd displayed on a HD panel is always going to be better than being displayed on a crt assuming your scaling hardware/software is up to the job. HD source material is something else entirely
Last edited:
james.miller said:i dont believe its that important at all. If you want to get the best from each format then yes, it does matter, but an upscaled dvd displayed on a HD panel is always going to be better than being displayed on a crt
I dont really understand where you are coming from, there is no way on earth an SDDVD scaled up to fit an HD digital panel is going to look anything like as good as the same DVD running on a CRT driven at the correct resolution. Digital panels (of which i have 3 in my house, do dont think i am biassed!) are a compromise, using current tech CRT's outshine anything available digitally, if we ignore asthetics of the unit itself. Given any like for like comparison, a CRT will produce a better quality image, this isnt open for debate, CRT is a more mature technology and is currently far ahead of what digital displays can emulate.
Anyway this wasnt a discussion about display technologies, it was a discussion about image size vs resolution. My opinion is that although higher definition sources are good (i have HD satellite, and have an HDDVD player, and a lot of other HD content) its not really worth getting overly excited about unless you are forced to change through wanting a digital only display on your setup.
I would have to say SD DVD upscaled to 1080P looks better than 28" CRT interlaced set. Although LCD has some negatives, overall the picture is better. You just have to make sure using good scaling, and setup the LCD properly (LCD's have lots of blocking to due excessive default sharpness setting) SD looks looks very good indeed.
My 28" CRT had perfect geometry too. I've had CRT direct view, CRT rear projection and two LCD TV's, 32" and 42".
My 28" CRT had perfect geometry too. I've had CRT direct view, CRT rear projection and two LCD TV's, 32" and 42".
For a fair comparison you should really compare progessive with progressive. Its pretty irrelevent, the argument is about HD sources not being that much to shout about over good quality SD when using a suitable display for both. The only display capable of both happening to be a CRT.
Can you even buy a 42" CRT direct view progressive set? No. So you can't do a fair comparison, unlesss you compare it with a 42" CRT rear projection progressive, 1080p. And those take hours to setup fully (electrical, optical focus then convergence)
Even if a 42" CRT direct view existed, it would be around 200kg, 8' deep, have terrible geometry, convergence problems and have distortion on the outer edges of the screen.
Unless you consider 28" Samsung 1080i set, but that has terrible geometry.
I understand where you are coming from, but unless you get a CRT front projector, then you can't do comparisons as none other exist, at the same screen size.
DLP has it's own problems, CRT does too- neither is perfect. CRT seems to hide poor quality sources, IMO because focus is always slightly out.
Even if a 42" CRT direct view existed, it would be around 200kg, 8' deep, have terrible geometry, convergence problems and have distortion on the outer edges of the screen.
Unless you consider 28" Samsung 1080i set, but that has terrible geometry.
I understand where you are coming from, but unless you get a CRT front projector, then you can't do comparisons as none other exist, at the same screen size.
DLP has it's own problems, CRT does too- neither is perfect. CRT seems to hide poor quality sources, IMO because focus is always slightly out.
I completely agree with all your comments dude, but, its not the argument. The argument is that the inherant problem is not really the source material, its the problem that all decent practical large direct view sets (thus, digital, as you have rightly pointed out no other tech can provide this) are limited to one fixed resolution. The CRT part was irrelevent, i only brought it up as i happen to own one (ran incidently alongside a Panny PX60 HD plasma when i dont feel like blacking the room out) so can do a perfectly fair comparison using it.
The same argument could be used using an identically specced digital display of PAL resolution, against an identical specced digital of 720/1080 resolution.
To my eyes, although the higher resolutions obviously look better, its not that huge that i am overly bothered by it. The plasma looks worse in every circumstance to the CRT, especially with SD material where i am having to use a PC to scale things to the plasma's resolution.
The same argument could be used using an identically specced digital display of PAL resolution, against an identical specced digital of 720/1080 resolution.
To my eyes, although the higher resolutions obviously look better, its not that huge that i am overly bothered by it. The plasma looks worse in every circumstance to the CRT, especially with SD material where i am having to use a PC to scale things to the plasma's resolution.
Last edited: