One thing that bothers me (to a varying degree, depending upon the particular device I am watching) is the geometric distortion on CRT based devices.

I have a 36" Sony xbr tv that I bought a couple of years ageo. It was their best 36" model at the time but I had to spend hours in the service adjustment menu to adjust things to get the least possible distortion. The results are not perfect but the small wiggles in straight lines, especially at the edge of the picture, are generally overlookable. As it was out of the box, the distortion was fairly bad, as is the case on MANY large CRT TVs on display floors.

In regards to CRT based projectors, beings the CRTs are smaller (and more likely to be held to tighter manufacturing tolerances), geometric distortions, I would expect, are going to be less severe.

Fixed pixel displays do not have these geometric distortion issues, but have other issues.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

I bought a 32" Toshiba flatscreen a couple of years ago. There definitely are geometry issues with the picture. I had a technician come over to try and get rid of them. He was able to correct some but not all. I wrote to Toshiba with my complaint. Their reply was basically that it is a general problem with the technology and you get what you pay for. They suggested I would have to move up to a much more expensive alternative. I looked at their top of the line model at that time (twice the cost) and it still had these same issues.

I like the look of the new LCD and DLP based models (size and weight is a bonus), but I feel they are too expensive still. Will wait till the price drops.

dengor, I own a Mistsubishi 48" widescreen rear projection CRT TV that has a removable screen protector, (that glassy finish you see in the stores). With the screen protector removed the screen gives a filmlike look without the reflections and glare. The protector is there to reduce the risk of damage to the screen by sources such as pets, children, wives... . It is not required to be on, though some companies might not have designed their sets to have the owner remove it. Some Panasonics we were looking at had the screen protectors as an optional purchase.

Ah, you beat me to it! Yes, most CRTs that I know have removeable protective screens. The risk is that, of course, without the protective screen, you do have a great chance of damaging your set.

Jeff

Have (and do have) two generations of the Sony 60" GW LCD. Have never looked back or regretted (other than the falling prices since I paid much closer to launch price).

Mitsy, has produced a RP 60" LCD that is something like at 10 1/2 inches depth!!!. Only for commerical display , - expected retail in America in 2004 to 5? They had issues with severe angle of projection at that narrow depth, but have improved- resolved this. Expect all manuf to get lighter and thinner.

Have not bothered to keep up with this and next years models since I am content at moment. When I purchased the Sony, the matte protective was the best of all manuf techs, anti-glare on this model when I compared all screens side by side on SR floor, major issue for my application. Can't remember the exact stats but AOV although running neck and neck with the Samsumg DLP's was in reality when I walked side-to side on the showroom floors a more usable AOV on the Sony. I don't think it will be long (within 2 years) till 20/30 inchers in DLP, Flat, LCD etc with HD hit 500 for a set for older generation techno/connectivity.

I had a good feel for this market, 3 yrs ago, I felt LCD models were going to be heavily represented by the various manuf. when that was not a popular view held by many videophiles. Am not watching the trends at the moment.

My very personal and subjective experince has been that I jumped on the upgrade wagon, at the earliest moment (around the time of the GWI) that the crossover tradeoffs begin to rivial (for various factored reasons) the best of CRT technology. (For years I held and held and could NEVER understand why so many men had 400 pd big screens, the screen size was great...the viewing angle and PQ was so bad and that tunnel vision sweet spot so bad, I just could not do one of those! When I factor the ENTIRE view experince. 16:9, Vewing angle, Amblient light factors, early HD resolution, - against artifacts, black levels, etc. I still come out on top in the entire experince with my model.

LOVE it..glad I did.

LCD to my eyes, looks the least theatrelike, so I won't be going that route when I sell my Pioneer HDTV.

Actually, I suggested a friend get the good ole' Infocus X1, seeing as he could get a discount at BestBuy...and wow, for a first gen DLP projector, and at that price?!

It is amazing, it truly is. Neither of us see the rainbow that people speak of, so no worries there. The bulbs won't be terrible to replace compared to other models. I was looking at the 2nd gen Runco DLP's, but for 6 grand? This X1 for a 6th of the price has thebest price/performance ratio.

I'll get a more expensive one in a couple years when they tweak them more.

------------------
Play it LoUd!!

To my eyes the DLP always looks the most like 'film', probably something to do with linearity or color gamut I suppose. Also, no burn in, ever, is a plus.

On the minus, it's a bit $$$ and the lanp WILL burn out eventually and need replaced.

Depending on the ambient light conditions in the room, I'm going to go either DLP RPTV or plasma.


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited November 28, 2003).]

lcos is as good as it gets other than a really nice crt. im waiting for "minority report" style tv and computers, that is going to be nice.

Is being film-like a good thing?

Or is that what we are just use to film??

Many, many (most) times when I have gone to a film cinema, the jerkiness (low frame rate??) of motion scenes has really, really bothered me. Like making me feel dizzy (no, I am NOT a blonde, but my seester...). On the other hand, when I was in San Francisco for Home Entertainment 2003, in June, I saw the movie X-Men 2 at the Sony Metreon. The projection system was based on a Texas Instruments DLP system. What bothered me was that when a bright something-or-other was projected, at first the image was very bright and out-of-focus (for someting like half a second or so) and then would become less bright and more in focus. Just about every initial bright scene started out with a small optical explosion and die down to a less intense steady-state intensity level. This was not an artifact of my vision. The most film-like of projection systems, film, has never done this. I do not know the cause of this problem, but it was most bothersome to me, as much as the "jerkiness" of many film projection systems I have seen.

Elsewhere and elsewhen at the show, the Sony $20,000 LCD projector was fabulous (it should be for the price), the Sony $3,000 LCD projector was excellent (especially for the price: I could be long-term happy with it) but the $1,800 Sony LCD projector, in spite of its low cost, would not satisfy me.

Maybe the DLP projector at the Metreon was not an all-out effort and accordingly has certain performance compromises that I just happened to be particularly attuned to. I hope that this is the case. I swear that I was sober when I watched X-Men 2 at the Metreon. I can clearly remember all the free candy I was given when I presented my complimenatry ticket.

Well, just because film has been around for a while does not make it the ultimate. No, I am not trying to upset people, well, if making them think upsets them, then maybe I am.

Anyway, being the "most film-like" does not automatically make a certain video display technology the best in my book.

Just as an amp being "the most tube-like" (no offense, Soundhound) or a digital source (CD, SACD, DVD-A or whatever) being the most vinyl-like (ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, rumble, etc, to me are just as distracting as the various digital flaws), a new video display technology being "the most old-something-or-else-wise" does not make it the best, whatever that may be. Nor does something being the "latest" make it the best, either.

I have had next-to-NO experience with the various projector technologies, on an in-home basis, but each one has it's own faults, problems and strengths, as does film. So, being the most film-like may or may not be a good thing, especially if you got stale old popcorn, soda, and candy stuff sticking to the bottom of your shoes.

Well, perhaps if they are giving out high-quality chocolate... I can't be bought, but I can be rented for a while.

Off my soapbox now,

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

[This message has been edited by Paul J. Stiles (edited December 04, 2003).]

I just don't like the 'glowing phosphor' look we've all sort of gotten used to. As for the artifacts you saw, the DMD can switch thousands of times / second - you had to be seeing a digital artifact from something upstream.

Any of the 'shine light through colored glass' systems seem to have an advantage in that the 'colored glass' can be a wide range (and probably more optimal) color.

I don't like 24fps either - it's always bothered me, but the color gamut in 'film' is generally pretty pleasant.