|
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: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: CRT projection too expensive? |
|
|
It has been known for a long time that a refurbished CRT projector can be a great deal for a lot of end users that want something better for their budget. I am no different and my lust for black levels and contrast ratio serve to drive me well. But, one of the things I have noticed is that while CRT front projection can be affordable, that sense of ability to afford decreases as one approaches certain factors.
For instance, what is the least expensive minty-tubed 1920x1080P capable CRT projector? Even if one steps aside of the CR/BL gravy train the price will typically be at or above that of their competition (you figure out what that competition is). Now, try to move from the baseline 1920x1080P CRT projectors into the midstream and the prices start to climb. How many have purchased a midstream 1920x1080P capable CRT for, say, $5K?
And then consider exceeding those competitors in this 1920x1080P market by simply exceeding their competitors in the CR/BL arena and you find yourself above the $5K mark--and all of this is before calibration (not everyone is a guru DIY'er), and then start to add in those nifty options--which in the industry of business is called french fries. And now you are easily looking at $8-15K.
But mainstream America that is willing to consider a dedicated viewing space (light controlled room that benefits the projection experience) is a limited breed when it comes to paying for things they can barely perceive, and conclude its more snake oil than not. While even my limited intellectual capacity can appreciate these finer fry aspects the relative costs place some solutions into an altitude many of us CRT fans simply cannot afford.
Then, of course, one asks why the 1920x1080P craziness? And people ask why 1920x1080i isn't enough. Well, I do recognize that 1080i and 1080P present the same amount of information (yadda, yadda, yadda) but the ability of less affluent units seem to have too soft an image trying to represent 1920 on a line.
So, while I feel that for a lot of things CRT projection can be affordable--by virtue of its cost on the refurbishment market--I feel that its competition in the 1920x1080 areana is starting to steal business and maybe even the dulled limelight.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know you like to be a troublemaker..
NO question CRT is for the enthusiast at this point, similar to a guy that tweaks his high performance car rather than driving it stock like most others do. But.... figure in bulb costs, the fact that most digital projectors last 3000-4000 as compared to tens of thousands of hours for a CRT chassis, and CRT is still a very favorable way to go.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure some CRT's don't resolve 1080p pristinely , but that slight softness to me at least gives it a more film like quality. When I go to an actual movie theater i dont think the image is any sharper than my pre-modded marquee 8500. and now that i have improved the resolvability of 1080p to some extent on it , i actually miss the softness it had . I have my seating close to my screen and now the scan lines are apparent. so 1080p fully resolved some times is not necessary and the slight softness you get from unresolved true 1080p can actually be a benefit.
Athanasios
_________________
Don't blame your underwear for your crooked ass~ unknown Greek philosopher
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." --- President Reagan
One Smart Dog!!!
Marquee High Performance Bellows now shipping!!
Marquee Modifications and Performance Enhancement
Marquee C-element and Bellow removal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If this is meant to be a "rah-rah CRTs are great and anyone that doesn't understand that is a stupid motherf*cker", then ignore my post, because I'm going to treat this in an even handed and accurate way. 
| Quote: | | It has been known for a long time that a refurbished CRT projector can be a great deal for a lot of end users that want something better for their budget. |
This is true, but the gap is RAPIDLY closing.
Consider this: 3 years ago, you picked up a great 8" machine for $2500-3000 and a great 8" LC machine for $3500-$4500. For this, you got a pretty darn good 720p and 1080i picture. At the time, the best looking 720p DLPs were over $10,000 and 1080p was $25,000+. Those 720p DLPs had too much SDE to be watched from 1.5x screen width and had calibrated on/off contrast ratios of about 2500:1 (compared to a typical CRT's calibrated non-black crushing 7000-14,000:1).
At this point, the CRT was the clear bang for the buck leader. Although the case could be made that given the increase in sharpness, ANSI contrast, and lower ambient noise levels, you needed to "pick you poison". Which strengths and which weaknesses did you really seek and be willing to tolerate. But, the CRT was 1/2 to 1/3 the cost so the clear leader in bang for buck.
Fast forward to today. That 8" machine is $1000 and that 8" LC machine is $1500. Those $10,000 PJ above, are now on the used market at $800-1500 and new PJs at the $1000 price point are pretty close. So, now the cost of entry is pretty much the same--it only comes down to preferences. And many people (and justifiably so) will pick the better ANSI CR, sharper image, better corner focus, and CIH capable 720p machine while others (and justifiably so) will pick the higher resolution, better on/off CR. So, it is not the super clear winner as it was a few years ago.
| Quote: | | But mainstream America that is willing to consider a dedicated viewing space (light controlled room that benefits the projection experience) is a limited breed when it comes to paying for things they can barely perceive, and conclude its more snake oil than not. While even my limited intellectual capacity can appreciate these finer fry aspects the relative costs place some solutions into an altitude many of us CRT fans simply cannot afford. |
For the purpose of discussion, we should just constrain ourselves to people doing projection.
There are two factors to consider:
1) Bang for buck
2) Cost vs. Benefit
In bang for buck, as I've outlined, the CRT is not a super clear leader anymore. There are decent 1080p machines for under $5000 that best a 9" CRT in many areas and fall short in other areas. It is not "unreasonable" to prefer the image from one of these machine just as it is not "unreasonable" to prefer the image from a 9" machine.
The 8" finds itself fighting stiffer competition able to just hold up against similarly priced digitals. The 7" is dead and I think pointless in setting up. It picture is too far inferior on too many criteria to be worth the cost and effort.
That brings up to number 2: cost vs. reward. Here I mean cost in both money and time. People in any hobby like to pick on or ridicule those not "smart enough" to be in the hobby. But one hobby is really no "better" or "worse" than another hobby. The high cost of time and effort with the CRT has been offset by its low financial cost relative to comparable digitals. This is not the case anymore. Now, we have very close to comparable financial costs and very comparable rewards. It would be perfectly reasonable for someone to decide that the performance of a newer digital is quite acceptable given the time and effort investment with the CRT. Is not spending time with your family a little more important that better black level and low APL performance?!?!? It would be ridiculous to argue against that!
So, yes, the folks with CRTs that don't feel any need to upgrade will keep using them, the folks that like it as a hobby or REALLY prefer the picture will stick with them, but for most people, the cost/benefit ratio is just not there.
Curt's car analogy is pretty accurate now. You can go out and get a car, dump a bunch of money and time in it and have a car that outperforms a new 911 on some metrics and does worse on other metrics. It might cost you about the same, or you might save a little money. If as a hobby, messing with the car is fun, or you have an emotional connection to the "fixed up" car, then more power to you. If what really matters to you is going out and driving fast, then the 911 is a great choice.
Consider this bit of anecdotal evidence: I live in a neighborhood where about 25% of the homes have dedicated theater rooms. Of the 5 or 6 neighbors I'm friends with that have the new 720p or 1080p digital PJs in their houses, all of them have acknowledged the areas my PJ looks better than them, some have said they thought my PJ looked better, but none has gone out and got a CRT and in fact all remain happy with their choice.
3 Years ago, CRT was a no-brainer. Today...not so much if you are coming to it new. In 2 years, there will be few practical reasons to go with a CRT, only hobby and emotional reasons. 3 years ago, Curt thought his business would be dead in 3 years. I thought he was crazy. Now I believe he thinks his business will be dead in 2 or so years and I agree with him.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elaine Benes
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 1416
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know its not a projector, but a buddy has one of the Samsung LED LCD panel tv's, and it is HANDS DOWN, in every respect, the best image using HD as a source, I've ever seen.
If they can get a panel to look so gorgeous, it won't be long before the projectors are supberb too...and they are cheaper and cheaper every single day.
IF I had $2000. to spend on a projector, I would NOT buy a G90 now, even if one were available for $2000. BECAUSE the digitals do SOME things that "I" like even better than a G90 can. Absolute black, no, but superb gamma and ANSI CR yes, yes, and superb focus everywhere, with ease....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your arguments are just about right, but I don't think you're quite right on the cost/benefit.
For one, you're assuming purchasing projectors 'outright' from somebody good at his job (like Curt). I've got $400 total in my 808s - it would be REALLY hard to get anything remotely approaching the PQ it has, even with 7/10 tubes, from a digital. This is coming from a guy who has four extra XGA digitals hanging around.
And 7" projectors are, if you dig around, free - and thus beat *any* alternative on price/performance!
If you're on an ULTRA limited budget, one where the $400 for a new bulb every year is absolutely out of the question, CRT has huge, huge advantages. You scrape together some cash, wait for the right deal, and you're done - finito. You've got something you can use without worrying about hours for years and years. To me, that's worth quite a bit.
So... on the very low price range, there's still a big advantage.
Mid-price range, where $500 for a bulb is no big yank, things are going to get a lot tighter.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave,
I pretty much agree with your entire post, save for this:
| Person99 wrote: | | The 8" finds itself fighting stiffer competition able to just hold up against similarly priced digitals. The 7" is dead and I think pointless in setting up. It picture is too far inferior on too many criteria to be worth the cost and effort. |
I disagree, unless you qualified your statement a little. It really depends on how close you like to sit, what your budget is, and how tolerant you are of visual artifacts in your projected image (and what KIND of visual artifacts you find objectionable.)
Personally, I wouldn't trade my lowly old 1271 for a 720p digital - any 720p digital. Really. From my ~1.2x sweet spot, I would certainly see pixels and/or SDE and possibly even rainbows or mosquito noise in one of the older higher-end machines or in one of the new entry-level machines. Personally, I'm not willing to trade my artifact-free image (save for halos and softness) for the digital unless we start talking about 1080p - which is obviously not in the same ballpark cost-wise. My projector looks very much like film and I love the look. Digital - not so much. So, image quality-wise, I'd rather have the low-end CRT than the old/high-end or new/low-end digital.
Then, there's cost: The nice 7" machines you think aren't worth the effort can be had for $300 or even $200 - often times cheaper than the BULB for the digital, and it doesn't dim over the year you watch it before you have to replace the bulb.
I realize low-end CRT isn't relevant to the HT market overall (even less relevant than CRT in general) or to Curt and his livelihood, but for guys just getting started and/or who are on a tight budget, I think low-end CRT still has some excellent value to a DIY HT'er.
I just took issue with your (mis)characterization that it wasn't even worth the effort or that it was somehow SO inferior.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elaine Benes
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 1416
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| perisoft wrote: | Your arguments are just about right, but I don't think you're quite right on the cost/benefit.
For one, you're assuming purchasing projectors 'outright' from somebody good at his job (like Curt). I've got $400 total in my 808s - |
CRT projectors that cost less than $500. are pretty much the ONLY ones which are currently "worth" the effort, as any of the higher priced ones(warranty or not) simply will not have enough chance of retaining ANY of their value in the very near future.
Lamp costs are a consideration, but if(when) LED technology ever gets a hold in the digital pj area, look out. 200,000 hour life would not be out of the realm of possibility.
Consider, the technology pretty much already exists to make a projector with no moving parts, which produces virtually no heat(LED light engine), no noise and has much better ANSI CR than a crt projector. Plus, it takes 5 seconds to setup, and you can take it with you to the cottage on the weekend and project it onto the side of the neighbors garage for a movie night....They aren't being sold yet, but they are in the pipe, and for less than $5000., brand new with warranty....
How good will an $8000. USED G90 look to most people when those digitals hit the market ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, but the digital doesn't retain any value, either!!! How much is a $2500 digital going to be worth a year from now? $1000 maybe?
The thing you fail to mention is that every 6 months, we hear about the latest crop of 'killer' digital projectors and they turn out to be a slight incremental improvement over the last-gen models. Not a huge improvement, but just enough to make the last model worth less than half what you paid for it - 6 months prior - because everybody wants the latest/greatest. Plus, the more expensive the projector was, the worse the hit it takes.
I'm not saying it isn't going to happen - that eventually there will be some great $2000 projectors that aren't really a trade-off. I just don't think it's right around the corner like it seems you do.
Oh, and LED light engines are only just now reasonable for rear projection - I think it's going to be awhile before they get enough lumens out of them to be practical for front projection.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When an LED digital that can modulate lamp intensity to provide both 10k:1 ANSI and infinite on/off, with a 250k hour lifespan, running 1080p without bad pixel artifacts... yep, gonna be a lot of cheap G90s.
But the thing is, those will be, say, $3k for a year or two, and the G90s, 1209s, Cine9s will be falling all over themselves getting sold for next to nothing on ebay.
So then you'll have a $500 G90 instead of a $2500 uberdigital.
When the uberdigitals are cheap, I'll take a look at one - it's possible (though to my mind, unlikely, as film production shifts more and more to digital techniques) that, as I've mentioned before, the failings of a CRT match the failings of 'real film' so well that movies will look better even though the actual image reproduction isn't good.
When movies are shot and produced digital, and produced to look good on LED driven projectors at the theater, there will by definition be no experience more 'movie-like' than the same style projector in your house. So... we shall see.
The good thing is that, regardless of the technology, watching movies will keep getting cheaper and better, and since I do all of this so I can watch movies, that makes me happy, no matter what's hanging from my ceiling.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| perisoft wrote: | Your arguments are just about right, but I don't think you're quite right on the cost/benefit.
For one, you're assuming purchasing projectors 'outright' from somebody good at his job (like Curt). I've got $400 total in my 808s |
Remember, I included total "cost" also meaning effort involved. If your PJ looks as good as it can, you've got some serious time in both your learning how to set them up as well as actually setting that one up or you have money in paying someone to set it up.
Also, to get HD sources into yours, you have to add at least a decent transcoder for almost $200 so you now have almost $600 in it.
| perisoft wrote: | | - it would be REALLY hard to get anything remotely approaching the PQ it has, even with 7/10 tubes, from a digital. This is coming from a guy who has four extra XGA digitals hanging around. |
This one I have to call bull**** on. An XGA digital goes for about $80 now, so it not a good comparison. So, lets compare the $600 808s/transcoder to a digi you can get for the $800-$1000 range. Those digis will kick your CRT's butt in ANSI CR, focus, picture uniformity, sharpness, gamma, and lumens. Your CRT will beat them in some (not all) low APL scenes, on/off CR, dithering/RBE artifacts, and let you sit closer than 1.5x (DC3) or 1.7x (DC2)--which most people don't do.
Now, if you want to put all the same sources into your CRT, you need a DVI input. So, the Barco just went up to $750--so now we are in the same ballpark, plus the barco took WAAAAY more effort to get up and running and looking good!
I just checked out a local guys Samsung SP-H710AE that one could buy from him for less than $800 (doesn't need a bulb). So, practically the same cost as your set up. Sitting 1.6x screen width away, I guarantee you that 98 out of 100 people would prefer the Samsung to your set up. And my guess is the 2 that didn't are members of this forum.
| perisoft wrote: | | And 7" projectors are, if you dig around, free - and thus beat *any* alternative on price/performance! |
And they look not so good. Plus, you need a transcoder or something, so you are going to have SOME money and quite a bit of effort into them. If you can't spend another $500 for a WAAAY better picture, you are probably in the wrong hobby.
| perisoft wrote: | | If you're on an ULTRA limited budget, one where the $400 for a new bulb every year is absolutely out of the question |
This is flat out false. If you know what you are doing, you won't need to spend more than $250 for bulbs for most machines, and the average person gets 2-3 years out of them. So, realistically for most, you are talking an expense of about $8 per month.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | Yeah, but the digital doesn't retain any value, either!!! How much is a $2500 digital going to be worth a year from now? $1000 maybe? |
Your G70 is going to fall as fast as the $2500 digital in a year from now.
| ecrabb wrote: | | The thing you fail to mention is that every 6 months, we hear about the latest crop of 'killer' digital projectors and they turn out to be a slight incremental improvement over the last-gen models. Not a huge improvement, but just enough to make the last model worth less than half what you paid for it - 6 months prior - because everybody wants the latest/greatest. Plus, the more expensive the projector was, the worse the hit it takes. |
Yep, that is why I'm comparing apples to apples.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | Dave,
I pretty much agree with your entire post, save for this:
| Person99 wrote: | | The 8" finds itself fighting stiffer competition able to just hold up against similarly priced digitals. The 7" is dead and I think pointless in setting up. It picture is too far inferior on too many criteria to be worth the cost and effort. |
I disagree, unless you qualified your statement a little. It really depends on how close you like to sit, what your budget is, and how tolerant you are of visual artifacts in your projected image (and what KIND of visual artifacts you find objectionable.)
Personally, I wouldn't trade my lowly old 1271 for a 720p digital - any 720p digital. Really. From my ~1.2x sweet spot, I would certainly see pixels and/or SDE and possibly even rainbows or mosquito noise in one of the older higher-end machines or in one of the new entry-level machines. |
True. But, it is a rare person that would rather sit 1.2x from a that image than 1.6x from a much better image.
| ecrabb wrote: | | Personally, I'm not willing to trade my artifact-free image (save for halos and softness) for the digital unless we start talking about 1080p - which is obviously not in the same ballpark cost-wise. My projector looks very much like film and I love the look. Digital - not so much. So, image quality-wise, I'd rather have the low-end CRT than the old/high-end or new/low-end digital. |
You may be one of those boundary people I referred to. But, bear in mind that worse corner focus and lack of picture uniformity are artifacts also.
Overall image quality of a 7" compared to a decent 720p DLP is pretty weak.
| ecrabb wrote: | | Then, there's cost: The nice 7" machines you think aren't worth the effort can be had for $300 or even $200 - often times cheaper than the BULB for the digital, and it doesn't dim over the year you watch it before you have to replace the bulb. |
I don't think a 7" is worth the effort if it is given to you free with mint tubes. You are going to spend alot of time and effort on it and have to spend at least $200-$400 for transcoders and such and end up with a picture that in many respects is worse than what you could get for $750. Most would prefer the $750!
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave, it's interesting what you say about transcoders, etc. For me, all of that's a non-issue since I run an HTPC. VGA -> BNC (which I got for a dollar) and the 1271 I got was good to go.
So, the whole lot cost me $1 given I'd have been running an HTPC anyway (all this assuming I was just going to run the 1271). Still hard to beat, even though the price/performance drops back a bit from infinity when you factor in the cable... 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustGreg
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 3098
Location: Kenosha, WI
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All I know is when Curt gets out of CRT sales & repair...I'm getting out of the CRT pj hobby. Some shmuck will come along and try to fill his shoes and probably have ridiculous pricing and unproven results. I don't feel like being held hostage. 
Hopefully the days of the bulb will be over by then. (doubtful) A Toshiba/Sony-esque projector format war would move technology along nicely in that regard. 
Greg
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | True. But, it is a rare person that would rather sit 1.2x from a that image than 1.6x from a much better image. |
I think that's more opinion than fact. If that were true, then theater owners wouldn't put any seats anywhere near the screen because nobody would ever sit there. My dad is like you. On the other hand, most of my friends are more like me and like - even love - to sit closer/watch a larger image. I like to be involved - immersed in the story. Plus, my room is tight enough, that If I wanted to sit at 1.6x, I could do so with a 73" - or maybe even a 65" RPTV. That's not HT to me - that's a TV room.
I also disagree with your description 'much better' as some sort of statement of fact. It depends upon which metrics you use to judge image quality.
| Person99 wrote: | | You may be one of those boundary people I referred to. But, bear in mind that worse corner focus and lack of picture uniformity are artifacts also. |
First of all, I don't think my corner focus or uniformity are that bad. Uniformity and corner focus is better on the digital, but it isn't perfect, either - just better. Besides, I don't watch test patterns in my theater. Uniformity and corner focus don't distract me from the story. I don't sit there while I'm looking at a closeup of Penolope Cruz's face, and think... gee, I wish the uniformity was a little better. But, I do think about that if I see pixels or SDE, or digital noise. Analog artifacts aren't nearly as distracting to me as are digital artifacts. That's why I mentioned that it depended on what your priorities were.
| Person99 wrote: | | Overall image quality of a 7" compared to a decent 720p DLP is pretty weak. |
Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree then, because I just haven't been impressed with the resolution - especially up close - of a 720p digital. It's just not for me. It will be a different story when 1080p eventually becomes affordable.
| Person99 wrote: | | I don't think a 7" is worth the effort if it is given to you free with mint tubes. You are going to spend alot of time and effort on it and have to spend at least $200-$400 for transcoders and such and end up with a picture that in many respects is worse than what you could get for $750. Most would prefer the $750! |
Of course most would - that's why digital shoeboxes are all the rage and CRTs are going away. Duh. My point was that CRT is still a viable option for somebody on a budget. You can buy a nice 7" machine and an HD Fury now for under $400. The digital stuff at that price point is junk. So, if you're working on a tight budget, CRT is still viable. That's all I'm saying. Of course some people would rather spend a little more and buy the convenient thing - that behavior is why convenience stores can sell a 20 oz. bottle of Coke for more than 2-liter at the grocery store. So what?
SC
Last edited by ecrabb on Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| perisoft wrote: | | Dave, it's interesting what you say about transcoders, etc. For me, all of that's a non-issue since I run an HTPC. VGA -> BNC (which I got for a dollar) and the 1271 I got was good to go. |
I was going to mention the HTPC, but since that only makes the case worse, I left it out. An HTPC to use as a scaling DVD player means you need a PC that cost more than a very good upscaling HD DVD player ($80) plus an HDFury. So, you could get DVD upscaling for $250--or you can spend alot more on an HTPC.
On top of that, you need to buy an expensive drive to do HD DVD and/or blu ray. And if you want to do them, your HTPC now has to be pretty darn expensive (more than the cost of a BD player and an HD DVD player). After spending more money and more hassles, you still have no way to watch HD movies that have only been available via cable/sat (I have the 6 Star Wars and The Incredibles in OAR HD) without the transcoder.
Of course, you can be a thief and hope some other thief posts those movies so you can get them.
So, the HTPC route means:
1) Your solution is more expensive than the digi.
2) You only watch lower quality SD sources which have no way of looking as good as HD sources on the digi, or you are a thief.
So, you just made the CRT case worse by throwing out the HTPC.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | Person99 wrote: | | True. But, it is a rare person that would rather sit 1.2x from a that image than 1.6x from a much better image. |
I think that's more opinion than fact. |
It is more educated guess based upon anecdotal evidence than fact. I did do a seating distance poll at AVS. Almost everyone (over 90% IIRC) answered that they like to sit further back than 1.25x and many more than half of the people (somewhere between 66 and 75 percent IIRC) said they like to sit further back than 1.5x. So, that anecdotal evidence suggests there is already a minority that actually WANT to sit at 1.2x. Couple that with all the theaters I've seen that have 1080p projectors from which you can sit 1.2x and there are few that actually ever sit at that distance, choosing to sit further away. For instance, one of the local rich guys has a multi-row theater with the front row at about 1.2x. Neither he nor any of the adults ever sit there--he calls it "the kids row".
If you want more evidence, go to the real theater. Virtually no one sits at 1.2x. You will notice that the bulk of the people clump around the 1.5-1.8 range--this is most peoples preferred range. In fact, more people choose to sit at 2.0x than at 1.2x.
So, we already know that most people don't even want to sit at 1.2x. So, it is already the "rare" person that wants to sit at 1.2x. Many of them may prize that distance about image quality, but I would have to think that some percentage of them would be willing to slide back to 1.6 for a better picture.
So, it is an educated guess.
| ecrabb wrote: | | I also disagree with your description 'much better' as some sort of statement of fact. It depends upon which metrics you use to judge image quality. |
I'm using the most widely accepted metrics for overall picture quality. I think you'd have a hard time finding more than a couple people that thought a 1271 looked better than an Optoma H79. In fact, I know you would pretty much find no professionals that thought that. Guy Kuo thought the H79 had a better overall picture than the NEC XG LC and the XG LC is significantly better than the 1271!
So, yes, you could find a "die hard CRT against all reason" person, but that is pretty much the only one.
| ecrabb wrote: | | First of all, I don't think my corner focus or uniformity are that bad. Uniformity and corner focus is better on the digital, but it isn't perfect, either - just better. Besides, I don't watch test patterns in my theater. Uniformity and corner focus don't distract me from the story. I don't sit there while I'm looking at a closeup of Penolope Cruz's face, and think... gee, I wish the uniformity was a little better. But, I do think about that if I see pixels or SDE, or digital noise. Analog artifacts aren't nearly as distracting to me as are digital artifacts. That's why I mentioned that it depended on what your priorities were. |
First of all, your corner focus is WAAAY worse than a digital. Don't even kid yourself about that. But, my first post in this thread is that it is all about "pick your poison".
Many people would find noise in the picture 10% of the time preferable to a soft picture 100% of the time. It is all about "picking your poison."
| ecrabb wrote: |
| Person99 wrote: | | Overall image quality of a 7" compared to a decent 720p DLP is pretty weak. |
Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree then, because I just haven't been impressed with the resolution - especially up close - of a 720p digital. It's just not for me. |
Again, I can only point you back to Guy Kuo and the other experts. As I've always said, there is more to picture quality than resolution. I think most of the good 720p DLPs look much better than the current crop of 1080p LCDs. A lower resolution image with better ANSI CR can actually generate a more realistic looking image than a higher resolution lower ANSI CR image.
| ecrabb wrote: | | You can buy a nice 7" machine and an HD Fury now for under $400. The digital stuff at that price point is junk. So, if you're working on a tight budget, CRT is still viable. That's all I'm saying. |
This is true. Again, I think it is the RARE person that can't/won't spend $800 instead of $400 to set up a home theater! If they are so constrained, then yes, $400 gets you more in the CRT world.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce 09
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 747
Location: Kamloops BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave you are too funny
With all the HD sources out there The ONLY NEEDED Gear between CRT and a Digital projector is a Transcoder !! HD fury 130 bucks period !! Very affordable when saving so much on their initial costs of the projector.
Every digital guy will need to buy HD cable boxes, HD dvd players and Computers to fully enjoy his Digital projector in HD period , and you know that Dave !!! quit arguing for arguments sake .
If you want to "Factor in hidden costs" Dave you should factor in seating .. Since digitals are brighter and USUALLY have larger screens you typically need more seats .
Crt's will drop faster than Digitals in the next few years .
This is the best time for Diyers or hobbyists to get into CRT, and the worst for resellers. . In two years it will be even better!! 9" LC 1080p projectors will be in the low hundreds of dollars and will still beat or compete with low to mid level 1080p Digital projectors.
Here is a pic of a projector that was a hundred bucks, and free HD player (my son's 360 HD dvd drive) as I already had them . I hate XG's and I only had about four hours into This AC XG75 .
http://vgonpic4.tempdomainname.com/i/c/f/1170200298.jpg
http://vgonpic4.tempdomainname.com/i/c/f/1170200299.jpg
The pics don't show the depth that was on screen, and the vertical lit up area you see on the right side of the image was from an open door and washed out detail .
This was a year ago they are cheaper now Dave.
I have passed on a couple of fifty dollar Xg's since then. I was tempted a few weeks ago though by a $102 XG852 with both remotes and ceiling mount.
I have not seen an image I like better than mine .. But I can recognize the fact that it will not be the same for everybody . I have just looked at the Sony vpl Vw60 and I am still Happy.
I have a black hole for a room with a relatively small screen 94" and sit around 1.2 screen widths away I love this setup , I find sitting this close very engaging, I am really waiting for holographic Images before I need to switch
Bruce
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with basically everything Dave said, except the cost of a HD-DVD drive for my HTPC. I just bought (another) Xbox 360 drive for A$38. A$38 is about US$38 as the US dollar aint worth squat anymore.
$38 to add HD-DVD to a pre-existing, midrange PC is hands down the cheapest way into real HD. Don't even need a transcoder. Bluray is more expensive still, but coming down fast.
HTPC might not be cheaper if you build from scratch and don't use the PC for anything else, but I have ~50 HD-DVDs all ripped and converted losslessly to MKV, right at the touch of a button, and no FBI warnings, no waiting. And I'd have the PC anyway, it's my main PC, not a dedicated HTPC.
Taping cable HD to DVHS is stealing too Dave, so I don't understand why you are so quick to accuse all HTPC users of theft.
-----
And to the comments about cheap 9"ers bandied about....I think that 9" chassis will be quite cheap in a couple of years....but what are you going to do for tubes? $1200 each..$3600 at set...rightyo then.
If you can find a LC set with decent tubes, and you want a CRT, jump on it. Otherwise just get a digital, I wouldn't recommend CRT to anyone anymore.
|
|
| 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
|
|
