Should I buy Direct View or RPTV
jsommers -- Wed, 08/25/2004 - 11:19
I read in TPV that the direct view technology is dated and that i should buy an rptv. is this true?
I read in TPV that the direct view technology is dated and that i should buy an rptv. is this true?
When you say direct view, do you mean CRT, or do you include Plasma and LCD?
Check out Randy Tomlinson's review of the KD-34XBR960 in the Sept. AVguide Monthly. He knows his stuff.
If inky blacks and details in dark scenes are important to you, and you don't mind the smaller screen size, you might just want to stay with the "old" technology.
Best,
Jim
I agree that CRT produces the best black levels, but such direct-view sets are also very heavy, and the screen sizes are quite limited (less than 40 inches). A modern DLP or LCoS RPTV can produce pretty good blacks on a much bigger screen.
Scott Wilkinson
Video Editor
The Perfect Vision
Direct-view technology is definitely not "outdated." As Tom pointed out, plasma and various LCD flat-panels are "direct-view" monitors. What is outdated (to all but a few hardcore videophiles) is the direct-view monitor based on CRT technology—the good ol' cathode-ray tube TVs most of us have been watching since we were whippersnappers.
As Scot has said, it is impossible to beat the blacks of a CRT monitor. And it isn’t just the blacks of CRT that distinguish them. Their dynamic range—the way they reproduce the broad and subtle gradations between featureless black and featureless white—is outstanding. Even though CRTs don't measure as well as certain other technologies in light output or even color accuracy, the best of the breed—like the great Sony 34** CRT monitor—simply have more "pop" than other types of sets. And while something like the Sony isn’t as wicked sharp as certain fixed-pixel devices, because of its smaller screen it doesn’t look as if it lacks for detail. Indeed, because the beamspots of CRTs are “feathery” at their edges (more like the grain of color film stock) CRTs tend to look more like film in general.
This “softer” CRT image is not an advantage, however, on sporting events or certain other HDTV broadcasts like talk shows. Indeed, on anything but movies a CRT will suffer in resolution by comparison to a high-pixel-count digital display. And even on movies really high-quality 1080p sets—like the Sony SXRDs—are coming mighty darn close to CRT-level viewing.
As much as I like their inky blacks, the weight of the larger CRTs has ruled them out for me. They have hernia written all over them.
There is no denying that CRTs are far more difficult to transport, set up, and maintain than fixed-pixel displays. As in audio, inconvenience is the price you pay for the best possible reproduction of some source material.
jvalin wrote:There is no denying that CRTs are far more difficult to transport, set up, and maintain than fixed-pixel displays. As in audio, inconvenience is the price you pay for the best possible reproduction of some source material.And what source material would that be. Very misleading statement.Compare to something other than audio.
1080p is where ya wanna be!
I thought I made which source material clear in the preceding notes: movies on DVD.
Another reason to go for a high-resolution digital display instead of CRT is the upcoming HD DVD and Blu-ray formats, which will eventually displace DVD. Once you see a movie on one of these formats, there's no going back: DVD looks like NTSC by comparison.
Scott Wilkinson
Video Editor
The Perfect Vision
Post new comment