Direct View CRT still hard to beat

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Just for the hell of it, here are some pictures from Discovery-HD
through Directv,
on my 3 year old Samsung 30 inch 16x9 PICTURE TUBE set, taken by
pointing a
digital camera at the TV, with normal nighttime room lighting.
Except for turning off the Olympus D-520 flash, nothing special was
done. The photos are just as they came from the camera.




http/www.frankcoins.com/TV1.JPG
http/www.frankcoins.com/TV2.JPG
http/www.frankcoins.com/TV3.JPG
http/www.frankcoins.com/TV4.JPG
http/www.frankcoins.com/TV5.JPG
http/www.frankcoins.com/TV6.JPG
http/www.frankcoins.com/TV7.JPG
http/www.frankcoins.com/TV8.JPG

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The photos dont do the picture justice. I agree, the CRT is the highest
quality image a guy can get. However, the size and weight are serious
concerns when shopping for a new set.

--Dan

"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:HkKJd.7356$cZ1.5383@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Just for the hell of it, here are some pictures from Discovery-HD through
> Directv,
> on my 3 year old Samsung 30 inch 16x9 PICTURE TUBE set, taken by pointing
> a
> digital camera at the TV, with normal nighttime room lighting. Except for
> turning off the Olympus D-520 flash, nothing special was done. The photos
> are just as they came from the camera.
>
>
>
>
> http/www.frankcoins.com/TV1.JPG
> http/www.frankcoins.com/TV2.JPG
> http/www.frankcoins.com/TV3.JPG
> http/www.frankcoins.com/TV4.JPG
> http/www.frankcoins.com/TV5.JPG
> http/www.frankcoins.com/TV6.JPG
> http/www.frankcoins.com/TV7.JPG
> http/www.frankcoins.com/TV8.JPG
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dg wrote:
> The photos dont do the picture justice. I agree, the CRT is the highest
> quality image a guy can get. However, the size and weight are serious
> concerns when shopping for a new set.
>

Not really. Direct view HDTVs are no larger than the largest direct view
analog sets. I've only moved my RPTV once in almost 8 years, so I don't
see weight is all that important, either.

Matthew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote:

> Just for the hell of it, here are some pictures from
> my 3 year old Samsung 30 inch 16x9 PICTURE TUBE set.
> The photos are just as they came from the camera.


Size matters! Viewing HDTV on a 30" CRT is just like taking photos with a 6-
MegaPixel digital camera, but only making 4x6" prints.

If the CRT photos to which you gave links are indeed faithful depictions,
your Samsung seems rather sick. If it is only the photos which are poor,
your boasting of them reflects on your ability to judge images.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> dg wrote:
>
>> The photos dont do the picture justice. I agree, the CRT is the
>> highest quality image a guy can get. However, the size and weight are
>> serious concerns when shopping for a new set.
>>
>
> Not really. Direct view HDTVs are no larger than the largest direct view
> analog sets. I've only moved my RPTV once in almost 8 years, so I don't
> see weight is all that important, either.
>
> Matthew

I've never moved my RCA F38310. The great thing about something so
heavy....no one will bother stealing it! ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Charles Gillen wrote:

> Size matters! Viewing HDTV on a 30" CRT is just like taking photos
> with a 6-MegaPixel digital camera, but only making 4x6" prints.

You're assuming people are watching small screens at a big-screen
distance like twelve feet. I have only a 26" CRT but the distance from
it that I sit is proportionally short, like five feet. And I have it
on wheels, so I can move it around any time. Since there's almost
always only one or two people watching it, 26 inches is a perfectly
decent size. I probably see as good a picture as most RP or plasma
customers do, despite picking from the low end of the CRT quality
range. And of course I paid only a fraction of what they did... I
actually bought my TV while unemployed, it was so cheap.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> "Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote:
>
>> Just for the hell of it, here are some pictures from
>> my 3 year old Samsung 30 inch 16x9 PICTURE TUBE set.
>> The photos are just as they came from the camera.
>
>
> Size matters! Viewing HDTV on a 30" CRT is just like taking
> photos with a 6-
> MegaPixel digital camera, but only making 4x6" prints.
>
> If the CRT photos to which you gave links are indeed faithful
> depictions,
> your Samsung seems rather sick. If it is only the photos which
> are poor,
> your boasting of them reflects on your ability to judge images.

My boasting shows that the CRT television produces excellent images,
I have over
30 years experience in broadcast engineering. Snapping a picture
off a TV screen
usually results in horrible quality. Think "kinescopes" , like the
"Lost Honeymooners"
which were photographed off a CRT before videotape was invented.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I am embarassed that you would show your ignorance in taking
a picture off a TV screen. You obviously own a computer. Almost
any computer video card can take a frame grab off your TV output
witch looks much better

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bill Ford" <billf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsATJd.19827$wi2.8998@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> I am embarassed that you would show your ignorance in taking
> a picture off a TV screen. You obviously own a computer. Almost
> any computer video card can take a frame grab off your TV output
> witch looks much better

The whole point was to show what the picture looks like on that TV. How is
one to do that with a screen grab?

Pagan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10vfnr4jv2vqj04@corp.supernews.com...
> dg wrote:
>> The photos dont do the picture justice. I agree, the CRT is the highest
>> quality image a guy can get. However, the size and weight are serious
>> concerns when shopping for a new set.
>>
>
> Not really. Direct view HDTVs are no larger than the largest direct view
> analog sets. I've only moved my RPTV once in almost 8 years, so I don't
> see weight is all that important, either.
>
> Matthew

Really? Are you saying the size and weight of direct view CRT are NOT
concerns when shopping for a new set? Or do you just like to disagree?

Why didn't you buy a direct view CRT instead of a RPTV?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dg wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:10vfnr4jv2vqj04@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>dg wrote:
>>
>>>The photos dont do the picture justice. I agree, the CRT is the highest
>>>quality image a guy can get. However, the size and weight are serious
>>>concerns when shopping for a new set.
>>>
>>
>>Not really. Direct view HDTVs are no larger than the largest direct view
>>analog sets. I've only moved my RPTV once in almost 8 years, so I don't
>>see weight is all that important, either.
>>
>>Matthew
>
>
> Really? Are you saying the size and weight of direct view CRT are NOT
> concerns when shopping for a new set?

I said, quite clearly, that they are no more concerns now than they were
in analog days. If the set fits in the room, size isn't an issue. If the
store provides free delivery and installation, then size and weight
aren't much of an issue.

> Or do you just like to disagree?

No, but at least I can understand what I read.

> Why didn't you buy a direct view CRT instead of a RPTV?
>

Two reasons:

1) I prefer the image on RPTVs over direct view.
B) 16:9 RPTVs were readily available, 16:9 direct view were rare.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

And really, the only way you can grab screen shots with a PC is with
composite or Svideo input-both NTSC formats that are actually very poor
video signals (~0.3megapixel).

(I take that back a little bit, some cable boxes have firewire output which
can carry compressed HD.)

If done carefully, I imagine that a digital camera could take a BETTER
picture, as a 1080i signal is about 2megapixels and modern cameras exceed
this. It would require proper distance and lighting, but I bet a pretty
nice pic could be taken.

--Dan


"Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
news:10vgj7fqrbirm73@corp.supernews.com...
> "Bill Ford" <billf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> newsATJd.19827$wi2.8998@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> I am embarassed that you would show your ignorance in taking
>> a picture off a TV screen. You obviously own a computer. Almost
>> any computer video card can take a frame grab off your TV output
>> witch looks much better
>
> The whole point was to show what the picture looks like on that TV. How
> is
> one to do that with a screen grab?
>
> Pagan
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dg (dan_gus@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> And really, the only way you can grab screen shots with a PC is with
> composite or Svideo input-both NTSC formats that are actually very poor
> video signals (~0.3megapixel).

How about just hitting the "capture" button on my HDTV card inside the PC?

It saves screenshots in native format (i.e., whatever was being broadcast),
so they are 1920x1080 for CBS, NBC, WB, and PBS, while Fox and ABC are
1280x720.

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: What's doing, Norm?
|
| Norm: Well, science is seeking a cure for thirst.
| I happen to be the guinea pig.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Yep, it's the one. That's what caught my eye with this set. Had ALL the HD
tuners built in, plus PIP with 2 analog tuners to boot!! Great menu also,
with features up the wazzoo.

Yes, the newer LCD and DLP and LCoC are starting to look real good in the
store. However, the RCA is in my house and didn't cost $5k and up...even
the first year out. Some day it will get retired to my bedroom and I'll
replace it with something (HD) larger in my entertainment room. Right now I
have my eye on Sony's new 3-Chip (one for each primary color) LCoC front and
rear projections sets. Haven't seen one in person, but the technical's
(1080P) and reviews are saying it's fantastic. The front projection model
cost about $25k, outside my range. My main complaint with DLP and LCoC sets
up to this date...the use of mechanical color filter wheels and only one
"light procession chip". We'll see.

Oh, yea I'm using both the internal ATSC Digital OTA tuner and the builtin
DirecTV tuner...both work great. The digital tuner is a bit slow changing
stations, so I just "punch-in" the station numbers with my Proto
programmable remote. I don't surf Digital channels, it just takes too long
to go from one to the other. Hey, it was an early model tuner, but it works
where it needs to...it picks up the stations perfectly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

DER wrote:
> Yep, it's the one. That's what caught my eye with this set. Had ALL the HD
> tuners built in, plus PIP with 2 analog tuners to boot!! Great menu also,
> with features up the wazzoo.
>
> Yes, the newer LCD and DLP and LCoC are starting to look real good in the
> store. However, the RCA is in my house and didn't cost $5k and up...even
> the first year out. Some day it will get retired to my bedroom and I'll
> replace it with something (HD) larger in my entertainment room. Right now I
> have my eye on Sony's new 3-Chip (one for each primary color) LCoC front and
> rear projections sets. Haven't seen one in person, but the technical's
> (1080P) and reviews are saying it's fantastic. The front projection model
> cost about $25k, outside my range. My main complaint with DLP and LCoC sets
> up to this date...the use of mechanical color filter wheels and only one
> "light procession chip". We'll see.
>
> Oh, yea I'm using both the internal ATSC Digital OTA tuner and the builtin
> DirecTV tuner...both work great. The digital tuner is a bit slow changing
> stations, so I just "punch-in" the station numbers with my Proto
> programmable remote. I don't surf Digital channels, it just takes too long
> to go from one to the other. Hey, it was an early model tuner, but it works
> where it needs to...it picks up the stations perfectly.

You have no idea what slow is until you've tried a DirecTiVo! Mine died
so I'm back to my built-in reciever. Wow! It seems down right snappy
compared to the DirecTiVo!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7G9Kd.16576$5R.2300@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> And really, the only way you can grab screen shots with a PC is with
> composite or Svideo input-both NTSC formats that are actually very poor
> video signals (~0.3megapixel).

I've gotten some good ones with my AIW cards. Of course, they aren't as
detailed, and wouldn't stand up to printing large sizes, but for
web/Email/joke posters they work well.

> (I take that back a little bit, some cable boxes have firewire output
which
> can carry compressed HD.)
>
> If done carefully, I imagine that a digital camera could take a BETTER
> picture, as a 1080i signal is about 2megapixels and modern cameras exceed
> this. It would require proper distance and lighting, but I bet a pretty
> nice pic could be taken.

These pictures weren't bad, either.

Pagan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

No tell, that's the HD DirecTV Tivo tuner with using the OTA part (and not
Sat). Right? Anyway I'll keep that in mind. I built my own OTA HD HDD
recorder with my last computer build using ATI's "HDTV Wonder" PCI card.
Works OK, and yea it's also glacial in changing chans.

DER

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

DER wrote:
> No tell, that's the HD DirecTV Tivo tuner with using the OTA part (and not
> Sat). Right? Anyway I'll keep that in mind. I built my own OTA HD HDD
> recorder with my last computer build using ATI's "HDTV Wonder" PCI card.
> Works OK, and yea it's also glacial in changing chans.
>
> DER

I was using a regular DirecTiVo. Slow as hell. The HD DirecTivo is
supposed to be even slower.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Steve K. (steve@nodamnspam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I was using a regular DirecTiVo. Slow as hell. The HD DirecTivo is
> supposed to be even slower.

It's not.

Some of the functions that draw menus to the HD output are slow in that
a page down results in a slight pause and then the full re-draw of the new
screen. Call it "jerky", but it actually takes about the same amount of
time. The difference is that it clears the screen first, and you see that
for an instant.

But, for SP Manager moves, setting up a single recording, setting up an SP,
etc., it's all faster. When I re-arranged priorities on my HDVR2 with
80+ Season Passes, it would take as long as 30 minutes to get off the "this
might take a minute" screen. The HR10-250 takes about 5 minutes at most
with the same 80+ SPs, and usually is done in less than 2 minutes.

Both my HDVR2 and my HR10-250 have 250GB of total storage, and have a lot
of items in "Now Playing", so they are fairly comparable in all ways but
the addition of HD.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/MotherGooseAndGrimm/GatewaySource.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:06:15 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
>I said, quite clearly, that they are no more concerns now than they were
>in analog days. If the set fits in the room, size isn't an issue. If the
>store provides free delivery and installation, then size and weight
>aren't much of an issue.

You haven't had Sony tell you to pack it up and ship it to the San
Diego repair center yet ?