In Reply to: RE: Hard to say. . . posted by ramw on March 11, 2010 at 00:14:24:
CRT pictures are great, but, they too would not be that good if blown up to the size of your usual flatscreens. The largest CRT I saw was a 40" model, and it actually didn't look that good because of the size of the picture. Beyond 30-32" CRTs become incredibly heavy because the glass has to be really thick to sustain such a large surface area under enormous air pressure.
The best picture I saw was from a professional monitor with a really small screen (I think 20"), that cost something like $40,000 back when that was real money. I do miss the kind of color accuracy, deep blacks and freedom from motion artifacts of CRT. I know the makers of flatscreens have come up with all kinds of processing to cure motion problems, but when the camera pans across a scene, the picture still looks like crap.
What really seems to matter to the buying public is the thickness of a set. Apparently, something like two inches is intolerable these days and everything has to be about an inch thick or it cannot sell.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Sure - Larry I 06:07:00 03/11/10 (2)
- Weren't CRTs subject to geometry problems? - Russell 13:53:28 03/11/10 (1)
- RE: Weren't CRTs subject to geometry problems? - Larry I 17:04:25 03/11/10 (0)