Oldest surviving color tape of entertainment show

[Electronic M]

There were HD-CRT projectors that could work with screens of varying size...ISTR hearing about UHD models.

I watch all my HD content on a Sony native 1080i HDMI equipped HD-CRT set... there's NO difference in picture quality watching 1080 content between it and a 1080 LCD except that the LCD looks worse most of the time and approximately equal the rest.

Anything bigger than 40" is pointless unless you have several dozen people and a stupidly large room. Most people watch stuff alone or in groups under 6. If you're sitting so close you have to pan your eyes to see things in other parts of the screen your sitting WAY to close.

[old_tv_nut]

HDTV was designed to be viewed at about 3.5 times picture height, confirmed by viewing tests with untrained subjects. Farther away you lose some benefit of the resolution, closer there is no more detail to be gained.

[etype2]

I have a Sony KD-34XBR960 which displays nice HD images. It is no match to my 2018 LG OLED with 4K, HDR, DOLBY VISION/ATMOS capability.

A small apartment has a 12 foot wide wall, plenty of room to add a projector screen or large flat screen OLED panel less than an inch thick. I would argue that a CRT television takes up more room, especially a KD-34XBR960.

You want eye panning in your home to get the immersive feel you get when watching a movie in a commercial theater. That what a home theater is all about.

[ChrisW6ATV]

Originally Posted by Electronic M

If you're sitting so close you have to pan your eyes to see things in other parts of the screen your sitting WAY to close.

Not true at all! It is called an "immersive experience", ideally with more activity on the screen than you can take in at one physical position.

I sit about 84 inches from a 77-inch-diagonal display, and I used to have a 92-inch screen and projector viewed at the same distance. The 77 is a reasonable compromise between practicality and ideal viewing size/angle in my home.

[DVtyro]

FYI: DigiBeta presentation.

[ChrisW6ATV]

Originally Posted by old_tv_nut

HDTV was designed to be viewed at about 3.5 times picture height, confirmed by viewing tests with untrained subjects. Farther away you lose some benefit of the resolution, closer there is no more detail to be gained.

Somehow I had missed your post on my previous visit. This makes perfect sense. I expect that they were referring to full 1920x1080 HDTV rather than the mid-level 720p (1280x720) used by Fox, ABC, and some others.

Based on that, of course, then UHD/4K, with twice the resolution in both directions relative to 1920x1080 HDTV, will be ideal at 1.75 times the picture height, assuming that everything works in a linear way. I am probably sitting about two times the picture height away from my 77-inch-diagonal screen, so that is pretty close to ideal I think. And, yes, I can easily see the difference among 4K, 1080i/p, and 720p at this position.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by DVtyro

Ignorance is bliss.

Ah man!!

[Alex KL-1]

Originally Posted by ChrisW6ATV

Somehow I had missed your post on my previous visit. This makes perfect sense. I expect that they were referring to full 1920x1080 HDTV rather than the mid-level 720p (1280x720) used by Fox, ABC, and some others.

Based on that, of course, then UHD/4K, with twice the resolution in both directions relative to 1920x1080 HDTV, will be ideal at 1.75 times the picture height, assuming that everything works in a linear way. I am probably sitting about two times the picture height away from my 77-inch-diagonal screen, so that is pretty close to ideal I think. And, yes, I can easily see the difference among 4K, 1080i/p, and 720p at this position.

Interesting again (abotu the resolution x distance)... yes, makers can propose "immersive experience", and not all people can love it (maybe most will).
"Me" included for people not liking it very much: not a fan of panning too much the eyes for video content (cinema is not my cup of tea). Also, not a fan of seeing a 200" zoomed face in a screen...
For gamming, I use monitors.
When watching new content (eg. 4k series) with my wife, I use a 55" OLED TV at distance higher that the recommended, but not so high that negates all difference of 1080p to 4k.

Is a example of preference; not so common I admit.

[Alex KL-1]

Originally Posted by etype2

I have a Sony KD-34XBR960 which displays nice HD images. It is no match to my 2018 LG OLED with 4K, HDR, DOLBY VISION/ATMOS capability.

A small apartment has a 12 foot wide wall, plenty of room to add a projector screen or large flat screen OLED panel less than an inch thick. I would argue that a CRT television takes up more room, especially a KD-34XBR960.

You want eye panning in your home to get the immersive feel you get when watching a movie in a commercial theater. That what a home theater is all about.

I bet that at least for one characteritic the CRT TV will surpass the OLED one: is easy to perceive if one use CRT for certain things even today, like me for gaming.
I notice a strong lack of resolution when an object moves in the screen, eg. a actress face, when the image pans/scroll, like in a action movie (the blurring motion effect). If one watch this in a PC CRT progressive monitor, one can fix the sigh in her face, and continue to perceive all details, wihtout smearing or loss of resolution. When watchin even in a "120Hz" OLED, is almost uncomfortable the loss of resolution sensation with the scroll scene (the blurring effect).

But why this? Is not a "Hi-End" mumbo-jumbo, is easily explained:

As I mentioned some time before, this is dependent of the persistence of our human/organic vision versus the manner that the display makes the refresh rate. Cinema people learned this hard way, making the light shuttering (if I mentioned the correct word). With lack of shuttering, a 24p frame is very lacking in motion resolution.
Enter the CRT. People already studied cinema and played with green slow phosphours, then rapidly decided to make a system taht reproduce motion as smooth as a 30+30 frames (60Hz; or 50Hz for a lot of countries) can possibly reproduce. In the end, is ended with a 2ms phosphour persistence for not blurring the motion. Most important, the pixels DARKENS ater 2ms. This is equivalent to 500Hz! Of course, feed with 50/60Hz video...
Then, enters the plasma panel. This blinks, due to line manner that is refreshed. But same CRT principles applies.
LCD time! Especially for early ones, for not resulting in a dim image and/or very backlight leaking, is needed that the image are displayed for ALL time before a new image enters. This is called a sample-and-hold display. Static for static images. Excellent for photos or Excel. But, for our own eye's "refresh rate", is not so good. This provokes a strong blur sensation for motion content.
Then, a backlight shuttering is possible to apply, for emulating the cinema proposition. Yes, this works... but the blink sensation is higher, since the entire screen blinks. In contrast, the CRT blinks following the video scan, making less obtrusive. Hi-End LCD based panels (using LED lighting) can make this locally, reducing the blinking sensation.
Nowadays we have OLED. Problem is, TV's like the LG CX's only have full screen dimming. If you adjust for a 60Hz content, the blinking is annoying, and bright reduces a lot. Of course, yes, the motion issue is fully cured; you can follow objects in the screen, like the CRT. For intermediate adjustments, the image not results like even a CRT running at mere 60Hz for motion sensation.
Gamers having low budget can use a CRT monitor for not needing using a outrageous high refresh rate needed for modern monitors for blinking issue.

OLED can refresh very fast, so is far better than LCD ones for applying tecniques for mitigating blurring issues.

Some of it on: https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters...mple-and-hold/ (But what a processing power or Internet bandwidth for that...

Some people are very sensitive to that (me...)

Also, for people having CRT monitors, I invite to explore the various tests disponible at: https://www.testufo.com/ and prepare to be amazed with the displays differences!

LAST NOTE: this test perhaps are interesting to make with a TV having a early 15GP22 CRT; the red is knowed for having too much persistence. But is problematic to find a PC having a native 480i output (the test is ruined with video conversions, due to pixels resizing etc).

All of this, for a little amusing about this subject.

[Dude111]

Thank you for all that..... This stuff is quite interesting!!