I’ve been looking at big screen TV’s for many years and your post answered a question about broadcast signals. I was just at a store that had all their TV’s playing non-HDTV signals and the picture was horrible. Better to have a smaller set than a large one with a bad picture. At another store, the picture on a 52" was razor sharp while standing 2 feet away (using a blue ray disk). Quiet a difference by many factors.
I’ve heard people complain about sports programs (by network) and it makes more sense now. My question is, would a non-HDTV signal look better on 720P or 1080P, particularly with sports programs. IMO, they define how fast a TV can react to motion and thus a general measure of how good the picture will be overall.
How do you know what type (or make/model) of CRT the OP is using? I didn’t catch where the OP gave that information.
It only confuses people if someone starts talking about CRTs vs. flat-screen TVs when that really has nothing to do with the question at hand (720p vs 1080p monitors). And this is an area where there is more than enough confusion already (e.g. erroneous beliefs that HDTV and digital TV are one and the same or, that HDTV signals can only be sent though cable or satellite or, that older analog-receiver TV sets can’t be used to view digital cable or digital satellite service or, that a 16:9 aspect ratio means that a program is high definition… etc…)
OK. I saw that. I didn’t mean to sound so snippy–I apologize if it came across that way. I was just trying to help sort out some of the confusion many intelligent people have about all of the new technologies in video.
An “old CRT television” could be a much better monitor than any flatscreen monitor available today. Film/video professionals still use CRT monitors for certain critical applications like color timing because they are more accurate that flat-screen displays (though this is rapidly changing–partly because flatscreen monitor color accuracy is getting better all the time; partly because CRTs aren’t really being manufactured anymore).
In the particular case of the OP, however, his CRT is not likely to be a high-end $10,000 broadcast monitor so it probably IS inferior to most new flatscreens. I simply wanted to point out that CRTs are not inherently inferior to flatscreens.
I gather things are quite different in the U.S. as compared to Europe, so I won’t try to answer the OP specifically, just give some advice not mentioned so far, I think.
Check the back of th set you’re thinking of buying. What kind of connections are there? Composite, HDMI, DVI, VGA? How much stuff are you going to connect: DVD player, computer, gaming console, 5.1 soound, cable box, DVR? I’ve noticed that the cheaper 720 sets (typically those with no brand name and always on SALE!) skimp on such things.
I bought my Samsung three years ago at a whopping $3 500 pricetag for a 40" 720 LCD. At the time, I thought it was a bargain.
Oh, understood. And one could certainly argue CRT computer monitors were capable of HDTV-esque resolution long ago, despite the lack of a formal HDTV standard at the time. I am not 100% sure on this, but I think a monitor with a .20mm pitch is capable of higher resolutions than 1080p.
I agree with the monitor part. I have a Dell 19" CRT monitor with a really tight pitch that I still use, despite size and weight, as my primary monitor. It’s still better for gaming than the LCDs available, although the LCDs are finally getting better. When I got it back in 2001 it was obviously better than any available LCD.
As for the size, I agree that unless you’re going to be sitting very close to the TV, don’t bother getting a 1080 set if it’s under 40 inches or so. I’ve got a 32" 720p and personally, with its size and my 6 or 8 foot (possibly farther) viewing distance, while I can still see the difference between a 480i and my 720p, I couldn’t see the difference in a store comparing the two resolutions on the same size. I do wish it had the faster refresh rate, as it tends to get very blurry at times watching sports OTA, but considering what it is and what I paid for it, I’m not too unhappy. Also, at a longer viewing distance, especially with sports or movies, I find that what’s better than the improved picture is the widescreen display. With football, for instance, you can see all of the backfield and the secondary before the play. In hockey you can see pretty far, probably from the goal line to the far blue line. Basketball is something like 3/4s of the court. Many movies on DVD are either mastered to display in 16:9 or, if a larger aspect ratio is maintained (say 2.35:1), it still looks better on the widescreen display than it does on a 4:3 display of the same size as more of the screen is used vertically.
What’s the deal with 1080i? Doesn’t the process of deinterlacing to get it to show on an LCD destroy any advantage? I understand that on CRTs, interlacing works great. Too bad people didn’t know LCDs were the future when HDTV was standardized. Or has post-processing technology evolved so that flatpanels can also benefit from interlacing?
Maybe this is where 120Hz comes in?
Btw, my main argument for 1080p is that it works much better as a PC monitor.
Although this can be more complicated too. My Dad got a 22" Viewsonic TV for Christmas, and while it’s sold as 720p, the resolution when you hook up a PC to the D-Sub connector is really 1440x900, or 900p. Not sure why this is, but maybe those displays are cheaper than a proper 720p.
What are people considering a close viewing distance?
I just went in and measured while my husband was on the sofa. It’s 9 feet from his nose to the screen if he’s sitting back in the sofa. Is that near or far or in between?
(I ask because our aged TV seems to be dying, and I don’t want to get a giant TV to replace it and don’t want to spend too much on something that won’t be visible anyway.)