|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Phil, reconsider the LCD and go plasma.
I'm not going to be critical of what someone else is using. That's isn't going to make it any easier on me.  What I want I cannot afford unless, as I said earlier, I sell one the wife's lungs or kidneys.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 2649
Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well said ecrabb! I agree with that whole statement,
some of those things you mentioned about the digitals are indeed why I enjoy my little sony Digital, for doing a quick big screen movie setup for a movie night at a friends house, the quality of video and the amount of time it takes to use a digital is a huge plus, I cant imagine saying
"lets have a movie night at your house, ill bring my CRT projector over so we can watch some movies" Spending at least a good hour to get a somewhat decent image on it just to watch the movie, is just not practical. being able to take my sony, easily move it to where I want it, and just plug it in and focus it in is the best part about it, like I said, it throws a great image for its price and technology level, but I wouldn't use it for a dedicated theater. A Dedicated theater is really the only way to justify a CRT for me, otherwise it would be rather impractical to move the beast machine upstairs downstairs so on and so forth.
Look at it this way, with the digital projectors and the CRT's, at least there is a wider variety for home theater. Digitals have made it possible for many people who wished they could have a home theater to actually have one. A big plus for those folks. Without digital, many wouldn't even fathom a theater just because of the complexity and cost of a CRT's initial setup.
and crabb, your absolutely right, a well setup CRT installation requires very little if any adjustments or tweaks. As you said if it makes person X happy with what they got for what they want, and for their needs, thats all that matters! 
_________________
When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clarence
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 3827
Location: Smith Mtn Lake, VA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: | | A lot of the "old hands" on the forums have burned out on CRT, especially since there are now other appealing options. I'm getting close to that point myself. A big ass LED TV is starting to sound good to me. |
Exactly. This is what I was getting at with my "we have different priorities" post. Apparently it comes as a surprise to some guys in this forum, but some of us set up home theaters to actually watch movies!!! This is the reason I don't have an HTPC for my main BD playback device. For me, it's too much hassle for what I get back in return. For others, the same is not true, and I recognize that.
Now, to be fair, with a well-installed and set up CRT projector, the hassle factor is actually very low. I haven't spent more than a few minutes doing anything with my projector in over a year. A little tiny tweak here and there is about it. I've put probably 1000 hours on my machine in the last couple of years and haven't spent any significant time at all tweaking |
+1
I haven't tweaked anything in my HT for years. We use it every day... movies, TV, video games. But once it was built, calibrated, and the sources and conversions were configured, there hasn't been any need or desire to tweak. So for years we just turn it on and watch the incredible picture.
So for the past couple of years, Photography has absorbed 90% of my hobby time and fun money spending, and I still enjoy peeking in here for the OT stuff, but the CRT vs digital arguments were old 5 years ago.
Last edited by Clarence on Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CxTurbo
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 425
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I always wanted a CRT Projector. I went through numerous digital chassis and still own a number of other digital technologies.
I now can not afford an IDLA or SXRD front projector @ there prices . My SXRD Tv in the living room was great but there was always artifacts that bugged the hell out of me and the bulb thing kinda bugs me I only have it becuse it was included when I bought my leather sofa set and I opted for that over the new LCD's at the time.
I returned a $10,000 50" Plasma (5 years ago) because of poor picture quality/craftsmenship (two defective set's in a row was enough)before I bought my house and I had money .
All in all I came back to CRT. I like it! alot. My wife loves the picture but hates the sh*t out of how I "destroyed her cealing with that damn thing" WAF is hudge in a married mans world.
Live and let live is what I say. Hell If someone dropped either a 9500LC Ultra or a new JVC I-DLA on my doorstep I'd be fine. If I was to purchase it would be a CRT. I'm the retard that would buy a 909 my wife however would disagree 
_________________
Paradigm Studio 100's,Studio 20's,CC-690, Paradigm DSP-3400 V1 SUB
Pioneer Elite SC-35 AVR
Pioneer Elite BDP-05FD Bluray
3x Bryston 3B's
URC Complete Control Medius TX-1000 Remote
HTPC (LGA775 Q6600, 8GB DDR2, 7TB Storage) Mediaportal
Lumagen MINI 3D
Moome FULLHD-EXT V2
Audioquest Cable Top to Bottom
9501LC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WanMan wrote: | | Phil, reconsider the LCD and go plasma. |
Wan, I said LED, not LCD. Well, an LED LCD TV is what I envision getting at some point. The PQ of a good LED TV supposedly at least equals the PQ of a good plasma. I currently have a plasma and it runs like a furnace. It generates a lot of heat. LED TVs don't do that. And I imagine LED will be future of BIG TVs, which is what I want. Light in weight and energy efficient makes them ideal.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | A lot of the "old hands" on the forums have burned out on CRT, especially since there are now other appealing options. |
well after 6 years i guess i'm an "old hand" and you would have to pry my Marquee out of my cold, dead fingers.
| Clarence wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | Now, to be fair, with a well-installed and set up CRT projector, the hassle factor is actually very low. I haven't spent more than a few minutes doing anything with my projector in over a year. A little tiny tweak here and there is about it. I've put probably 1000 hours on my machine in the last couple of years and haven't spent any significant time at all tweaking |
+1
I haven't tweaked anything in my HT for years. We use it every day... movies, TV, video games. But once it was built, calibrated, and the sources and conversions were configured, there hasn't been any need or desire to tweak. So for years we just turn it on and watch the incredible picture.. |
+2, haven't done a dam thing except install the last and very awesome version of Moome's HDMI card. Removing those 2 little screws was exhausting though, had to take a nap afterwards. I can totally see why some people would switch to a bulb 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheVerge
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 928
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | WanMan wrote: | | Phil, reconsider the LCD and go plasma. |
Wan, I said LED, not LCD. Well, an LED LCD TV is what I envision getting at some point. The PQ of a good LED TV supposedly at least equals the PQ of a good plasma. I currently have a plasma and it runs like a furnace. It generates a lot of heat. LED TVs don't do that. And I imagine LED will be future of BIG TVs, which is what I want. Light in weight and energy efficient makes them ideal. |
Local dimming LED televisions use quite a bit of power. As much as a plasma, i dunno, but i have heard several of them use more power than a regular back lit LCD.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
? Why? Does it take more LEDs to do the local dimming than with edge-lit?
The sources I find say LEDs take less power, but I can't find anything about local-dimming power specifically.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JOneil
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | ? Why? Does it take more LEDs to do the local dimming than with edge-lit?
The sources I find say LEDs take less power, but I can't find anything about local-dimming power specifically. |
Yes, local dimming requires a full array of LEDs set up in blocks for the local dimming. Edge LED is merely a row of LEDs around the perimeter and uses a sort of prism panel to transfer the light evenly across the back of the LCD panel.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is pretty low for a 50" - probably nearly half of a comparable plasma.
I can't see how the power consumption would be that different between local dimming and edge-lit LED... I mean, you still have to light up the same screen area with X lumens regardless of how or where you put the LEDs... In theory, the local-dimming display has the potential to actually use less power since backlight power consumption should at least track somewhat with APL, whereas the edge-lit display is always on regardless of content... Of course, that doesn't take into account the many other factors that I'm certain exist... But, that brings me back to guessing that the power consumption isn't that different between local-dimming and edge-lit LED displays.
Anybody know for sure?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheVerge
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 928
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't say all of them.
Check out last years XBR8 55 inch for reference. 480w !!!
Apparently they are using more efficient LED's now.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cool table. Looks like the LEDs are 3-4x lower "watts per square inch" (calibrated) than the plasmas.
LEDs: .071 - .157 w/in^2
LCDs: .105 - .274 w/in^2
plasma: .194 - .364 w/in^2
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lexx21
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: | | A lot of the "old hands" on the forums have burned out on CRT, especially since there are now other appealing options. |
well after 6 years i guess i'm an "old hand" and you would have to pry my Marquee out of my cold, dead fingers.
| Clarence wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | Now, to be fair, with a well-installed and set up CRT projector, the hassle factor is actually very low. I haven't spent more than a few minutes doing anything with my projector in over a year. A little tiny tweak here and there is about it. I've put probably 1000 hours on my machine in the last couple of years and haven't spent any significant time at all tweaking |
+1
I haven't tweaked anything in my HT for years. We use it every day... movies, TV, video games. But once it was built, calibrated, and the sources and conversions were configured, there hasn't been any need or desire to tweak. So for years we just turn it on and watch the incredible picture.. |
+2, haven't done a dam thing except install the last and very awesome version of Moome's HDMI card. Removing those 2 little screws was exhausting though, had to take a nap afterwards. I can totally see why some people would switch to a bulb |
Dude you should have carbed up first. And remember..... pace yourself....LOL
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheVerge
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 928
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | Cool table. Looks like the LEDs are 3-4x lower "watts per square inch" (calibrated) than the plasmas.
LEDs: .071 - .157 w/in^2
LCDs: .105 - .274 w/in^2
plasma: .194 - .364 w/in^2 |
aaaaaah, teh maths !!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | WanMan wrote: | | Phil, reconsider the LCD and go plasma. |
Wan, I said LED, not LCD. Well, an LED LCD TV is what I envision getting at some point. The PQ of a good LED TV supposedly at least equals the PQ of a good plasma. I currently have a plasma and it runs like a furnace. It generates a lot of heat. LED TVs don't do that. And I imagine LED will be future of BIG TVs, which is what I want. Light in weight and energy efficient makes them ideal. |
Phil, I know what you meant.
I was more concerned not with how the backlight was being generated (CCF vs. LED), but rather the other aspects of LCD, of which I mentioned one (off axis viewing). While I have not owned an LED-based LCD flat panel, I have owned a CCF-based unit. I then got a plasma as an addition, compared the two, and had no problems replacing the LCD once it died with a second plasma.
But maybe you always watch TV while sitting eye level and on-axis. It is amusing my 15'x18' family room can see the content much better due to the off-axis viewing allowance plasma brings. Also, I can be upstairs (at WD) and looking down 15' at an angle and see a nice picture--and not a crappy LCD picture--due to this aspect of plasma.
Either way, for boob-tube use both technologies are more than suitable for the family room. Will this be your first flat-panel?
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe this thread went on for this long.
Phil brought up a great point that a lot of old timers are probably burnt out.
I think Ben's just trying to be nice and make sure fellow forum members aren't paying inflated prices.
In the end, CRT still has the upper hand in motion and on/off cr in regards to picture quality. If those don't matter to you or you value other CRT attributes (repairability, etc.), then digital is a good alternative.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wan, I'm on my 3rd panel TV. 2 plasmas and one LCD. Plasmas look better me too, but I thought these newer high-end LED TVs are suppose to be getting pretty good.
When I say I want a big TV, I'm talking about 80-100". When a good one comes out in the $7-10K range, I'm buying one! 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | Wan, I'm on my 3rd panel TV. 2 plasmas and one LCD. Plasmas look better me too, but I thought these newer high-end LED TVs are suppose to be getting pretty good.
When I say I want a big TV, I'm talking about 80-100". When a good one comes out in the $7-10K range, I'm buying one! |
Well you can get a 60" LCD for $1600 so that can't be too far off!
http://www.logicbuy.com/deals/sharp-lc-60e88un-60-inch-1080p-240hz-lcd-hdtv/21253.aspx
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
