# CRT triple gun projectors do some of the best HD available!



## Mr Bob

If that "older" CRT triple gun ceiling projector that you have retired because HD came along does line doubling, you can bet that it does HD too, and flawlessly. Which will deliver pix from it that you never thought would have been possible, far better than any line doubler you may have had on it so far. If you retired it because it just didn't deliver what you see out there in the showrooms now, you're in for a treat!

I started a thread here awhile ago about this, right here in this section, but I don't think I put the best title on it. Please check it out, and contact me if you want your "old" (not really!) CRT projector calibrated. With HD on it you won't want anything else, including most of what's out there today in terms of fixed pixel.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...s/27627-hd-beats-pants-off-line-doublers.html


If you want to see what triple gun CRT pjs are really capable of, go to this thread, where screenshots of them are all over the place -

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18643807#post18643807

Mr Bob


----------



## Mr Bob

*CRT triple gun projectors do the best HD!*

If that "older" CRT triple gun ceiling projector that you have retired because HD came along does line doubling, you can bet that it does HD too, and flawlessly. Which will deliver pix from it that you never thought would have been possible, far better than any line doubler you may have had on it so far. If you retired it because it just didn't deliver what you see out there in the showrooms now, you're in for a treat!

I started a thread here awhile ago about this, but I don't think I put the best title on it. Please check it out, and contact me if you want your "old" (not really! It is actually stealth grade and ageless) CRT projector calibrated. With HD on it you won't want anything else, including most of what's out there today in terms of fixed pixel. Your CRT front projector, which probably has never had anything but line doubled, tripled or quadrupled content on it, is capable of today's stealth grade HD, which looks far better than any line manipulation ever did.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...-doublers.html


If you want to see what triple gun CRT pjs are really capable of, go to this thread, where screenshots of them are all over the place -

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post18643807

If you have a CRT RPTV you are thinking about retiring, please see this thread, which says you don't have to. Nor want to, once you find out what's really true!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=695922

Mr Bob


----------



## lcaillo

Bob, I have to take issue with your comments. While there are some fine CRT projectors out there, to say that they do things flawlessly is less than honest, particularly considering the age of many of them. To say that they do the best HD is hard to justify as well. There are certainly things that they can do well, but there are limitations to the technology and its implementation that have to be considered. There are also very large differences in the capability of various models. 

I appreciate your crusade to improve the performance of and keep in service CRT based products, but please frame your contributions in a manner that places things in a more realistic context. There is much to be said about the value of these projectors, but what I see in your post appears to be a pitch to get people to go to your thread on AVS. How about a little more discussion here about some specific aspects of the technology that shine and how you get the level of performance that you describe. Most of our readers are interested in the how and why, not just in being sold on an idea.

Also, the use of screenshots is simply not a good way to assess the image quality of a projector or any other display. There are too many variables to make it a good representation. You may be able to see enough to say that an image is very good, but there are so many ways that what you see on a screenshot can vary from the original image that it is hard to make many conclusions. We generally prefer some documentation in the form of calibration data, along with the details of a system to give a discussion context.


----------



## Mr Bob

OK. Will do. Can't right now, gotta head out, but will get back to you on this ASAP. I have seen this in action, and firmly believe in all I have said. Will try to flesh it out for you a bit, soon -

b


----------



## Mr Bob

I was not trying to get anyone to "my" thread over at the AVS. That is a completely different thread from the one I mentioned, the Screenshot War!!!!!!!! thread which was started by Cliff, who has a G90 CRT triple gun doublestack. They can peruse "my" thread over there if they want, I'll be glad to give co-ordinates to "my" thread - but won't here, because that's not really my intention here.

My intention here is to save a bunch more ceiling pjs that have been shut down by their owners, who don't have any idea that they already have the best and don't need to buy new. Very simple. If you own a CRT ceiling pj that you have retired in favor of being seduced by all the new fixed pixel stuff out there, or are thinking of buying new for the same reason, listen up: you're missing a great picture, one you already own. Don't buy new. Bring your "old" one out of mothballs and prepare to be impressed. I have performed this miracle on 3 ceiling pjs so far that I can think of quickly and easily - 2 in the past month or 2, one a long time ago on a $40K Runco - and each time the owner was blown away by how much using HD improved his picture over the Faroudja or Crystal Image or Dwin processor that had been in play before they went to HD. None of them suspected that their ceiling CRT pj could actually look better than it always had. Clueless. And blown away by the results. *That's* what I am trying to share here.


As far as screenshots go, I think you're missing the bigger picture on that, Len. Screenshots cannot *improve* a photograph taken of a display. What you see is what you get. Imagine you could use Photoshop *try* to improve things with it, but that really wouldn't be sporting now, would it? Don't think it would do anything but downgrade the pic anyway. I have never used anything even remotely resembling Photoshop or anything like that in my screenshots, and with good screenshots you don't need to anyway. They are pure and straight from the camera, unretouched in any way except the sizing itself, to fit properly on the page at hand, which is handled by the screenshot provider, in my case Image Shack. Others use Photo Bucket, etc. That's how the guys over at the Screenshot War thread do it too - straight from the camera. If they use any alternations, they declare them at the time. 

The ones that impress me most are the ones that have *NO* alterations, but come straight from the owner's camera.

You can *downgrade* a photo of your display's image by not being real careful in how you take the photograph, but the pix I am recommending people look at are unretouched.

Here are some screenshots from my thread over there, which are of my 73" Mit CRT triple gun RPTV set. Unretouched. You can't improve on something you don't retouch, and I think these screenshots say more than a thousand words each. I could try to describe how and why the pix look so good, but none of that would be adequate to actually seeing a photograph of a good display. I think I am demo'ing how good a display can look the best way possible - words or stats just couldn't be better, IMHO...

Bob





Except for simple passive mechanical switching, component fed *straight to display* from Dish VIP 622 DVR. 

No HDMI or HD Fury is involved in these pix, nor any scaler of any kind. *Nothing* is being used to alter these pix. What you see is what you get. They are completely component to component, device to display, unimpeded -



b


----------



## lcaillo

I understand your perspective quite clearly, Bob. My point is that your experience is based on what you get after applying a great deal of experience and effort to these sets, and is not typical of what most people get out of them. The degree of work and skill needed, along with the fact that ANY CRT is going to degrade with age, makes it unlikely for most to experience what you are describing as the performance of CRT based sets. There is no doubt that the capability is there, but it is not in every set and it doesn't happen as easily as with other technologies.

With respect to screenshots, yes, when the image shows detail, that detail cannot be created by enhancement, nor improved by processing, so when you see a great pix in a screenshot, it is a great image. The problem is that you can't judge lots of things accurately. For instance, the highlights in the maybelline images above are blown out. Is that due to the set, to compression at some point, or gamma differences between the camera, encoding, decoding, and computer monitor? No way to tell, but the images look soft, highlights crushed, and do not look all that impressive to me. It could be limited dynamic range in the set photographed or it could be any of the above. My cheap LCD display looks better in the highlights, if not in the blacks.


----------



## lsiberian

I see what you are saying Bob and I think it's a great that you've been able to save some of these projectors. But I also agree Leonard that it's a lot of effort for someone else to duplicate. Honestly any projector worth it's salt looks great with HD stuff. Still CRT projectors are a lot of work to manage.


----------



## Mr Bob

No contest. CRT sets do take a lot of care and feeding. Just look great when they are looking their best.

Len, I have shown these shots to many customers right there at their computer monitors, and I always get oohs and ahs. Yes the highlights blow out a little, and I would say that's probably because of my camera settings more than anything else.

Screenshots can be valuable IMHO, but yes there are limitations. They really can't do the dynamic range of the display justice. I demo'd that with 2 ID shots of the same thing on a scene from TFE but with different exposure settings, where a girl has her hand on the butt of the guy she's with. Both shots look good in general. But in one shot the strands of the fur she's wearing show up great, on the other they are blanched. Yet on the other the texture of his dark pants show, whereas on the first they don't. Can't have it all.

But I still think screenshots have their place, to tell a part of the story that can't otherwise be told effectively.

b


----------



## lcaillo

No doubt that CRT projectors can look great. When properly calibrated in the right environment you other technologies can as well. I just don't think it is reasonable to claim that CRTs do the best HD. There are things they do well and things they don't. Comparing the best of the best, properly calibrated and installed in the right way, you can make a case for CRTs, but it is not a conclusive win in any way, and with the way most people would set them up and use them, there are lots of other options that are likely going to look better.

I have been installing, calibrating, modifying, and generally tweaking projectors since 1979, and have a deep love for CRTs. I also know that the vast majority of CRT projectors and RPs ever sold never looked anywhere close to their potential, even with attempts at calibration adjustment. Now if someone has one of those units and wants to get the most out of it, either themselves or hiring someone like you or me to do it, that is great, and they do not need to replace their set to get great HD. I would not want someone to read your thread and be mislead to think that they can just go out and buy one and get the best HD available. There is a lot that goes into making these sets look great. It is what you do and are passionate about it and that is great, but there is more context that has to be considered when making statements about what is "the best HD."

I still don't see anything in the screenshots that is that impressive. Sorry.


----------



## Mr Bob

OK.

I don't disagree.

b


----------



## lcaillo

I didn't mean to beat you into submission, Bob!

For the benefit of others here, Bob and I go at it a bit sometimes, but it is not out of any real disagreement on the facts. Bob is a bit evengelical about CRTs and I tend to have a little more balanced view because I do lots of work with other technologies. He knows that I love CRTs and like to tweak with them like he does. He is very good at what he does, and frankly, I doubt that there is anyone better at getting the most out of CRT based displays.

What I would really like to see is some specific examples of before and after shots (which can be very demonstrative) and some of your favorite sets discussed in more detail, Bob. We don't have a lot of CRT users here but we do have some. Some of the folks that come here for information on convergence repairs would probably benefit from learning more about optimizing their sets. If we could start a thread or two about that it might be very useful. Things like focusing techniques, cleaning optics, and optimizing dynamic range could be good places to start as well.


----------



## Mr Bob

Will get you some usable stuff as soon as I can get a little extra time...

b


----------



## Mr Bob

Here's one I really like, I'll get to the before and afters soon.

In case anyone has any questions about how tight the res can get on triple-gun CRT, as in there have been reports of not being able to see lettering clearly on CRT...

How about fine print?











camera zoomed in a bit










camera lens zoomed in QUITE a bit, capturing the actual vertical ribs of the lenticular screen


----------



## Mr Bob

Here's a 7 year old Pioneer triple gun CRT RPTV under normal usage, before and after my optics cleaning protocol. You have to be extremely careful when you do this, as those optics are incredibly fragile and any damage is instantly permanent.

Before -








[/URL]

After -








[/URL]

Sorry, the images got reversed when my roommate scanned their negatives, but you get the picture...

This improvement happened over an afternoon. It's critical periodic maintenance, and without it you really are not getting your money's worth from your display. Of the 28 optical surfaces in there, at an average of 4 lenses each per lens barrel plus coolant covers and mirror, 10 of them get obnoxiously dirty in Pioneers - 4 in Mitsubishis - and their need for periodic cleaning shoulda been required education whenever anyone bought a CRT RPTV new back then.

But of course the retailers wouldn't want you to know things like this, even if *they* knew about them in the first place. They just want to keep selling you new gear every few years. What an ideal way to bring that off, just by letting dirt and soot and smoke and grit get sucked out of the air and build up on your optics naturally, every minute it's on just by being powered up! It eventually gets bleary like the above picture and starts to look "worn out". Plays right into their hands. 30,000 volts really does a number on the static cling quotient of all the airborne particulates. Charged particulates love to drift to and cling to the closest smooth surface - like mirrors and lenses - where after a few years they have then become glopped on there and stuck like glue and require extremely careful measures to get removed cleanly and safely. See my website for more about this issue and others involving CRT tech.

Obviously as you can see from the After picture, that set was not "worn out" at all. Far from it. Chances are neither is yours, if it looks like the Before picture. Contaminated coolant - or as I call it "cooties in the coolant" - is the one exception to that statement and can also make your set look really bad and "worn out", but that is rare, and limited to just a few brands. It's not found in the higher echelon brands of HDready.

Truth is your CRT RPTV is capable of delivering in spades if you keep it maintained and fully fine tuned, even at 10 years old and longer.

b


----------



## mdrake

Awesome before and afters! I never knew a CRT projector could look that good! 

Matt


----------



## Mr Bob

Stay tuned. I'm just gettin' warmed up...

:wave:

b


----------



## Mr Bob

Here's a post about Joe Barnhart's 510 Elite CRT, which I cleaned and calibrated several years ago, reprinted from another thread.

Just the Afters on this one.




joebarnhart said:


> A note to all you folks thinking of having Mr. Bob come out and have a go at your TV sets. Do it.
> 
> I've had Mr. Bob tune up my 7 year old Pioneer Elite PRO-510HD twice now. The first time he did a massive overscan correction and full geometry workup as well as the normal color normalization. The second time was limited to cleaning the optics again and touching up the colors and greyscale.
> 
> Here are a couple of unretouched photos I took while watching the "Lost" finale. The photos are reduced in size a bit but you still get the idea. If the color is off, it's because of the color balance setting of the camera, not the set!


----------



## Mr Bob

Here's a couple more from Joe, same Pioneer 510.









[/URL]











[/URL][/QUOTE]


----------



## Mr Bob

*Overscan redux via the shimming op*

These shots were posted on another site on 3-24-09. They talk about an addendum to one of the most fantastic mods I have ever seen, for CRT RPTVs. The Shimming Op, created by a very intuitive, inventive and just downright gifted Aussie named Owen.

This is about taking that mod to the next level and recapturing sizeable areas of CRT face that the factory allowed to go unused in there.



Mr Bob said:


> Let me begin by stating that if you don't have a virgin, aging-footprint-free set of phosphor faces on your CRTs, you cannot do this extension of the shimming mod. I have been VERY careful with my display for the last several years, and they were aging-footprint-free. This also involved catching a friend who was watching Dish Network guides on my set for interminable periods and putting the kabosh on that! As such I was able to do this, which would not have been possible if ANY footprint had already set in on them.
> 
> I have had these shots in the can for weeks, looking for a good time to do it. Will start with these -
> 
> 
> Green sides - not bad, perfectly centered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> But not fully utilizing CRT face
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]


----------



## Mr Bob

*Red and blue*

Red and blue - not so good. Very badly centered -

centermost section - almost at the edge








[/URL]

You can see the edge of the CRT face itself in the background as it goes upward from the edge of the image on it








[/URL]

outermost section - way far away from the edge








[/URL]



blue at centermost edge, almost touching it








[/URL]

outermost edge with WAY more space 








[/URL]

Unlike the green gun, R and B VERY badly centered.

This was what I found several weeks ago. I knew I could not let this stand...





b


----------



## Mr Bob

I know they used this same array on the 65" version, which explains some of why these outer guns were so badly aimed, but 4 well placed shims on the aiming of just ONE of the sets of the guns between the 2 versions would have taken what - 10 extra minutes of production time??? Probably more like 5...

Overscan starting point, with badly centered r and b -








[/URL]

Hwid 37 in sm, vertical taken in a bit to make the circle a true circle via yardstick








[/URL]

hwid 41, to fill CRT face to max allowable on CRT faces








[/URL]

vhgt 36 starting value








[/URL]

40 ending value, expanding pic vertically on CRT face. Pic now fits the entire usable area on each CRT face.








[/URL]


----------



## Mr Bob

Images recentered and expanded out to fill the available phosphor face. My goal is not to achieve as low as 2%, that's really not necessary, so making the images almost hit the edges won't affect what I DO want to see, which is in from that a bit -









[/URL]








[/URL]








[/URL]








[/URL]








[/URL]








[/URL]








[/URL]


----------



## Mr Bob

Green turret/lens. Notice that the screw ends from down below are the same on both sides. Actually on all 4 sides. Its aiming was excellent and as such was not altered. Wish the other 2 guns had been that good!

You can see how many times my optical focus has been altered, due to the multiple shimmings. I mark where I start each and every time I do the Cantilever Technique to my set -








[/URL]

Between the turrets, whose screws didn't move much

Between Blue and green guns 








[/URL]

Red and green guns







[/URL]
Red outside screw ends, showing how much I had to loosen up those screws to make the outside of the CRT come down enough to tilt it properly. They started out with the same amount of exposure as the green screw ends








[/URL]

Blue - almost nothing left! Quite a bit of tilt, to re-aim the red and blue properly. Put glue on them to make the screws stay, like the LockTite we used to use for immobilzing tape heads after azimuth alignment -








[/URL]


4th thickness of shim added, to make 3" total for my 73". Had to use 4" bolts!

Nobody ever said it had to look pretty...













[/URL]








[/URL]


----------



## Mr Bob

O'scan redux restored after adding another 3/4" of shimming, to 3" total shim, red corrected on centering, blue not yet








[/URL]

grid version








[/URL]

red and blue both centered, but uncorrected. Shimming has recaptured the o'scan redux from before, after the expansion of the images on my CRT faces ADDED overscan to gather more CRT face area








[/URL]

but notice how much work now has to be redone! curves at the edges, keysoning errors, nothing straight anymore...








[/URL]

this is what 480 looks like totally uncorrected after the add'l shimming








[/URL]

and this is what program material looked like uncorrected after the shimming, esp noticeable at the side edges...








[/URL]


----------



## Mr Bob

*results of shimming op plus expansion of image to fill CRT faces Read more: CRT triple gun projecto*



Mr Bob said:


> Didn't notice till everything was uploaded that my camera tilt was off!
> 
> Sorry, ain't gonna go back and shoot 'em all over again. These are just some of the total I just shot. Took a long time.
> 
> Just know that it was the camera being tilted, not the display!
> 
> 
> 
> These were all shot at 1.2MP on my Kodak Z712 IS, on tripod and 2 second timer'd, of course -
> 
> 
> b
> 
> Sprint commercial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 24
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> Casino Royale commercial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> Evening news
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> Test patterns. Remember the tilt is at the camera, not the display. I wound up with just under 2.5% overscan all around. Had started with about 6% -
> 
> Took vertical sizing in a bit to accommodate the offness of the DVE pattern, which is slightly oval, vertically, when sized properly at the edges. I set my roundness using a shot of the moon, on a broadcast show, I believe on PBS. I am sure it will now match the perfect circles on the ABC and CBS logos as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> Final Mits sm settings for height and width
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> Joe Kane grid at low contrast
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]


----------



## Mr Bob

*results of shimming op plus expansion of image to fill CRT faces*

Hit F11 to really get the full picture -








[/URL]








[/URL]

Note -

The huge magneto at the bottom left section of this machine was moving on its rail, so is blurry. The rest of the shot is clear and crisp.







[/URL]


----------



## videobruce

I love it every time I see one of these CRT fanboy threads.

1. They never tell you all of the downsides of CRT's, just what is good about them. They will tell you whats wrong wit the competing technology thou. They should join the CEA.

Anyway:
A. Convergence; a never ending set of adjustments (yes i=they drift over time),
B. Grey scale; same as above, it will change,
C. A nasty high voltage section up to and over 40kv. Something you don't want to be near,
D. Size and weight,
E. Scan lines, I can see them every time unless I'm really far from the screen,
F. Overscan, 
G. Geometric distortion (that can't be corrected by convergence),
H. Fluctuation of image size due to poor regulation in the PS (image expands with bright areas, shrinks with dark scenes)

Did I miss something? 
Of course, many of the above are lessened by just purchasing true "broadcast" monitors. :heehee:


----------



## tonyvdb

videobruce said:


> A. Convergence; a never ending set of adjustments (yes i=they drift over time),


I adjust mine once every 4 months or so and it takes me about 20 min to complete, not a big deal at all and the image still rivals most LCD/plasma displays I have seen .


> B. Grey scale; same as above, it will change,


hardly, My gray scale still looks as good as it did 3 years ago.


> C. A nasty high voltage section up to and over 40kv. Something you don't want to be near,


Thats easy, just keep your fingers and other body parts away from where it should not be anyhow.


> D. Size and weight,


Plasmas weigh just as much and if you have a good sized room who cares about the size.


> E. Scan lines, I can see them every time unless I'm really far from the screen,


You must have something wrong with the one you have, CRT RPTVs is known for the best handling of different resolutions.


> F. Overscan,


That depends on the set, Mine is less than 3% all the way around. You missing absolutely nothing in those areas.


> G. Geometric distortion (that can't be corrected by convergence),


But if the display is calibrated properly this is a non issues as well I have perfectly straight lines all the way across with no distortion of bending.


> H. Fluctuation of image size due to poor regulation in the PS (image expands with bright areas, shrinks with dark scenes)


Not sure I have ever seen this.

Seems you have not really looked at a properly tuned display, I do agree that the newer technology is very good however if the current CRT display you have still works there is really no need to upgrade.


----------



## videobruce

> You must have something wrong with the one you have, CRT RPTVs is known for the best handling of different resolutions.


I have _*never*_ seen a CRT (not projector) any size, type or quality level that I couldn't see scan lines. You may call it something different, but it's the nature of the beast.


> Not sure I have ever seen this.


You have never used the equivalent of a 10-90% APL bounce test pattern off of a DVD (they all have them) and seen the results? :huh:


----------



## tonyvdb

videobruce said:


> I have _*never*_ seen a CRT (not projector) any size, type or quality level that I couldn't see scan lines.


And with LCD or Plasma you can see the pixels if its not its native resolution so each have there issues.


> You may call it something different, but it's the nature of the beast.You have never used the equivalent of a 10-90% APL bounce test pattern off of a DVD (they all have them) and seen the results? :huh:


Yup, I have both Avia and the Video essentials DVDs and have no issues displaying any of the moving patterns. I do agree that it is tough to get this right but is most certainly is achievable.


----------



## lcaillo

Visible scan lines are an indication of good focus. If you see scan lines, a digital projector of similar resolution and size will show them as well. The reason that scan lines are likely to be associated with CRT based sets is that many were not 1080p displays and those that were may have displayed lower resolutions at their native resolution rather than scaling to 1080 or whatever the native resolution of a digital display might be.

I can't really argue with videobruce on most of the points, as they have merit. So does Bob, however. both are right and wrong to some degree. Both make the same mistake of taking one polar position, not admitting that another perspective may be valid in a different context than one's own narrow view.

The fact is that CRTs have some very nice characteristics, and if you have a unit designed to do high resolutions, calibrated it properly, and use it in the right application, it may be quite stunning. It is equally true that the stars don't align so perfectly in the vast majority of CRT based applications. Not everyone has the experience with them that Bob or I have, and few people have seen them at their best. The same can be said of digital displays, but they will generally look less bad when set up improperly or just taken out of the box.


----------



## Mr Bob

videobruce said:


> I love it every time I see one of these CRT fanboy threads.
> 
> 1. They never tell you all of the downsides of CRT's, just what is good about them. They will tell you whats wrong wit the competing technology thou. They should join the CEA.


I felt plenty of people could come up with the downsides of CRT, so why bother making it easy for them? Babies are difficult too. Do we not get one-sided views of them from their parents, who are *definitely* privy to both sides of the coin on that...


> Anyway:
> A. Convergence; a never ending set of adjustments (yes i=they drift over time),


Once set up properly convergence doesn't need to be performed often at all. I have not redone my convergence in probably more than a year now, and I am a fanatic. The static on my set needs it maybe every few weeks, which takes less than 30 seconds because I do it in service mode. In user mode it would take less than 15 seconds.

Waiting 45 minutes for it to level off on its warmup after turn-on is the chief objection that I would call valid, and you can always turn it onto an unused input for a blank screen while you cook dinner if you wish...



> B. Grey scale; same as above, it will change,


 Yes, eventually. Not drastically and certainly not unwatchably so.


> C. A nasty high voltage section up to and over 40kv. Something you don't want to be near,


It's 30KV, still enough to set you on your *** if you're a dedicated *UN*careful person, who delights in breaking the rules and going where he is not supposed to go - like under the hood while the car is running. Anyone not wanting to be set on his *** is free to *stay outa there!*



> D. Size and weight,


 No contest. They are on wheels, tho, for those who really care. How often is it an issue, aside from moving it in and moving it out?



> E. Scan lines, I can see them every time unless I'm really far from the screen,


If I could not see the scanlines on my display I would consider it in dire need of attention. I welcome the display's ability to show scanlines, I actually use the more highly visible 480p version of them as part of my Cantilever Technique focusing process, rather than the much harder to see HD versions. 

The whole idea of getting away from 480 and on to HD was to make the scanlines harder and harder to see, and HD accomplished that, far better than any Faroudja was capable of doing, under the limitations it had to work with, which was starting with 480i. 1080i/p makes scanlines all but invisible on most program material. Only certain* types *of video will readily show them, and they are rare.



> F. Overscan,


 Excessive overscan can be cured, in several different ways




> G. Geometric distortion (that can't be corrected by convergence),


 This is not convergence, it is geometry. Convergence is far more challenging to dial in properly all across the screen, but when dialed in properly is capable of showing the grain of the film used to shoot the movies we watch.

Bad geometry is not something you're stuck with in CRT tech, and can be cured by any calibrator or talented DIYer who knows how to successfully achieve a straight line.



> H. Fluctuation of image size due to poor regulation in the PS (image expands with bright areas, shrinks with dark scenes)


This is a function of the deftness of the power supply in supplying what's necessary based on the current drawn. Some brands are better, some are worse. The best ones have none of what you have described. Mine definitely does not have what you have described here.



> Did I miss something?
> Of course, many of the above are lessened by just purchasing true "broadcast" monitors. :heehee:


I am sure there are things you've missed, but you're doing just fine, so keep at it. I see no reason to help someone who doesn't believe in the things I believe in anyway. Seems like a waste of time, to me. 

The owners who are on this thread - well most of them anyway - are here because they also feel CRT delivers the best overall picture, all things considered. If you don't, I humbly invite you to start your own thread declaring what you believe is best, and get your own followers. I have no idea why you even spoke up here, this is not a thread dedicated to whatever you seem to be interested in, whatever that happens to be.

Matter of fact, I didn't see anything in what you've written that would qualify as something you're actually interested in. Would stirring up whatever sparks you can get going, on issues that can in any way, shape or form be turned into controversy, qualify?


b


----------



## videobruce

I never said flat panel technology didn't have it's issues. My point is, threads as the one posted above only state the pluses of that technology. They are slow to nonexistent when it comes to pointing out the minuses.

One point that seems to need clarifying is this issue of scan lines. Thou the thread is referencing to CRT front projectors, the link is referencing to CRTs in general. Direct and RPTVs AFAIR, not front since it is in the RPTV sub-forum. 

One point I will agree, when it comes to CCTV, using LCD monitors just plain sucks. I have done some CCTV work and the ultra low resolution (in spite of claims to the contrary) of even the better cameras (heaven forbid using IP cameras), the image on even a small 10" LCD monitor is terrible compares to even a low end 13" CRT monitor without a comb filter.


----------



## videobruce

> I felt plenty of people could come up with the downsides of CRT, so why bother making it easy for them?


It's to present a unbiased comaprision. It's not making anything easier for someone that already knows.


> The owners who are on this thread - well most of them anyway - are here because they also feel CRT delivers the best overall picture


But, how about ones that are not owners that are looking for both sides of the equation, a balanced argument?


> I have no idea why you even spoke up here, this is not a thread dedicated to whatever you seem to be interested in, whatever that happens to be.


To repeat, so a balanced set of arguments are presented. So wuth your logic, only ones taking the positive side of a topic should speak out in a debate? As in one sided??


> I didn't see anything in what you've written that would qualify as something you're actually interested in.


Sounds as you are taking this personally.


> Would stirring up whatever sparks you can get going, on issues that can in any way, shape or form be turned into controversy, qualify?


Seems to answer my previous question.


----------



## Mr Bob

You're right. I woke up in the wee hours here, at 5:30am, went over my answer in my head again, and decided to come back here to my laptop and make some corrections rather than let what I had said stand.

But you had already answered. Oh well, guess I'll have to let stand what I had said without correction. Your answer has merit, I had reacted a bit hotheadedly. My apologies.


I didn't start this thread to present a balanced view of CRT vs. other formats. I started it because there are hundreds if not thousands of CRT front projectors out there - front and rear - that have been retired to someone's basement or garage because their owners didn't know they could do HD and have bought other formats to take over. This is due to the one-sidedness of the retailers out there, who want nothing more than to relegate any and all CRT devices to the landfills. They are retailers, and selling whatever new stuff out there they can takes priority in their bottom line, however good those CRT devices already are, even those in place already with line doublers on them. Have they told the consumer that with one relatively inexpensive addition they don't have to worry about it? That they can have incredible looking HD on their current "outdated" equipment?

The retailers don't care. Many of the integrators don't care. They see a CRT set, they scrap it and ask questions later if at all. The usual words are, "We'll be glad to take it away for you at no charge." Then they make it disappear, and can't wait to do so fast enough. One high end Oakland shop won't even return my calls, when I recently left multiple messages about this issue, prompted by the owner whose CRT pj I had just saved. He was blown away with how I had just made his $20,000 Runco projector look on HD, which he had never seen on it before, and said I should call them and alert them, even gave me the name of the person to talk to. Due to my calibration on it and the addition of one small/relatively inexpensive transcoding device, it now looks the equal of anything else out there today. Better than a lot of them, and at a fraction of what buying new would have cost for the same sized screen.

Nada. According to the person who took my messages - over several days - they just scrap any and all CRTs without question, and sell them their new stuff. They obviously have no desire whatsoever to hear from me about this issue. Why should they? They can't make any $ that way.

That kind of thing rips my heart out, when I know how good CRT tech can look.


So my thread here. It's not meant to be a debate, it's an honest plea to owners of CRT tech everywhere to wake up and realize they don't have to go out and spend thousands of $ again on new projectors, front or rear, just to get HD.

Ask any retailer out there about this. See if they give you the unbiased story.

Sorry, yeah I was being biased, and yes, in favor of CRT. I felt the arena was already stacked against it, as a genre, and was trying to even the playing field.

Sorry for any taking of it personally, didn't mean to, it just rankles me that such unevenness is going on out there in the marketplace in the first place, that's all -

:yikes:

b


----------



## videobruce

Of the main three choices for front projectors; CRT, LCD and D-ILA, I haven't seen much mentioned ob D-ILA. I have seen a couple of smaller LCD projectors that were terrible. The pixel structure was more obvious than those pesky scan lines.

I never had any real hands on experience with front projectors other than viewing them in stores (uck) and on home (not so uck, but not great). I will be the first to admit, I really don't like the concept as I don't like going to movie theaters either. Big is only better to a point and 'shows' are well past that point. I just prefer RPTV out of all the technologies, but the uneducated general public that doesn't have a clue, seems to think 'thin' is better, mostly women that don't like large cabinets. :explode:

I had a Hitachi 48" CRT RPTV for (I believe) 17 years and it was trouble free (other than convergence once a year). I also had a Mits _*one piece*_ front projection unit (I guess that qualifies me for owning a front projector) that had a mirror that opened up from the front. Convergence was terrible. So bad I had to remove the rear cover (and leave it off which I didn't like since the necks of the tubs extended past the wooden cabinet) to allow cooling so the convergence would stay as adjusted. If I replaced the cover, in 10 minutes the alignment was way off. There was no way I could adjust the set with the cover off. Luckily, there are no kids.


----------



## Mr Bob

videobruce said:


> One point that seems to need clarifying is this issue of scan lines. Thou the thread is referencing to CRT front projectors, the link is referencing to CRTs in general. Direct and RPTVs AFAIR, not front since it is in the RPTV sub-forum.


Is it? I just looked over the heading it's in, thought I had placed it correctly. If this thread can be placed more to where front projector owners will see it, please assist me in doing so.

b


----------



## videobruce

But, it is in a forum that includes all technologies.  
No other choice.


----------



## Mr Bob

videobruce said:


> Of the main three choices for front projectors; CRT, LCD and D-ILA, I haven't seen much mentioned ob D-ILA. I have seen a couple of smaller LCD projectors that were terrible. The pixel structure was more obvious than those pesky scan lines.
> 
> I never had any real hands on experience with front projectors other than viewing them in stores (uck) and on home (not so uck, but not great). I will be the first to admit, I really don't like the concept as I don't like going to movie theaters either. Big is only better to a point and 'shows' are well past that point. I just prefer RPTV out of all the technologies, but the uneducated general public that doesn't have a clue, seems to think 'thin' is better, mostly women that don't like large cabinets. :explode:
> 
> I had a Hitachi 48" CRT RPTV for (I believe) 17 years and it was trouble free (other than convergence once a year). I also had a Mits _*one piece*_ front projection unit (I guess that qualifies me for owning a front projector) that had a mirror that opened up from the front. Convergence was terrible. So bad I had to remove the rear cover (and leave it off which I didn't like since the necks of the tubs extended past the wooden cabinet) to allow cooling so the convergence would stay as adjusted. If I replaced the cover, in 10 minutes the alignment was way off. There was no way I could adjust the set with the cover off. Luckily, there are no kids.


I know it might have caused some additional noise, but perhaps a fan woulda helped. Or 2 fans - one in, one out. The ceiling pjs had extensive fanning, I believe the G90 uses 6 fans altogether.

10 years ago I cleaned, calibrated and set up a friend's 50" Sears fold-out-the-mirror unit, which like your Hit reflects onto a curved screen, and she's still using it. All her relatives tell her she should go flat panel, but she's undismayed. She likes it just the way it is. 


b


----------



## Mr Bob

videobruce said:


> But, it is in a forum that includes all technologies.
> No other choice.


Aarrgghh...

b


----------



## videobruce

I stand corrected. They actually do have a "Front Projectors" sub forum.  
It's just below this one.


----------



## Mr Bob

! How'd I miss that???

Will be starting this one up over there immediately!

Thanks -

:thumb:

b


----------



## Mr Bob

*Triple gun CRT delivers some of the best HD available*

If that "older" CRT triple gun ceiling projector that you have retired because HD came along is capable of interpreting line doubling, you can bet that it does HD too, and flawlessly. Which will deliver pix from it that you never thought would have been possible, back when you bought it. Far better than any line doubler/tripler/quadrupler you may have had on it so far. If you retired it because it just didn't deliver what you see out there in the showrooms now, you're in for a treat! If it has never had HD on it, get ready to be blown away with high resolution registration you've never before seen on it. They didn't have HD to play on it back then, and thanks to Faroudja and a couple of others, high res was still possible. But now we have HD, which blows *everything* you could get ahold of back then out of the water. Including (God love him, so glad Eves was there for us!) Faroudja.

Contact me directly if you want to save thousands of $ over buying new and have the stealth grade and ageless CRT projector *you already own *calibrated. With HD on it you won't want anything else, including most of what's out there today. Your CRT front projector, which may never have had anything but line doubled, tripled or quadrupled content on it so far, is eminently capable of today's stealth grade HD, which - once your pj has been dialed in for it - looks *far better* than any line manipulation ever did.


If you want to see what triple gun CRT pjs are really capable of, go to this thread, where screenshots of them are all over the place -

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=900831

If you have a CRT RPTV you are thinking about retiring, please see this thread, which says you don't have to. Nor want to, once you find out what's really true!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=695922

Mr Bob


----------



## lcaillo

I have never run into a set that drifted that much that could not be fixed so that the convergence was stable, at least after warm-up. Most of these problems relate to improper setup and overheating, improper heat sinking, or power supply problems. These experiences are just like the general experience with CRTs that most people have that are not very good. They are the result of dealers, techs, and users who don't understand how to calibrate, align, or repair the technology effectively. We were getting stunning images out of Advents with NTSC 35 years ago when they were set up properly. They had scan lines and chroma issues that were inherent in the technology of the time, but the projectors could be set up to far exceed the available source technology. Later sets that can do 1080p could look exceptional with the right skills applied.

Bob is relating his experience that many people have not had the benefit of and in that respect may not seem consistent with the mainstream. His point is that when you know the technology, there are benefits that most don't realize.


----------



## lcaillo

Thread moved.


----------



## Alan Brown

*Re: Triple gun CRT delivers the best HD available*

Bob,

You and I have a lot in common and I respect your experience and abilities, but I can't agree with your thread title. I started selling, designing, installing, and calibrating CRT projection systems before HDTV even became available. I'll grant that a well designed graphics grade CRT projector, with 8" tubes or better, can outperform many current digital projectors in certain regards with HD signals. When you started one of your similar linked threads at AVS, it was in 2006. Low and mid priced digital projectors have improved significantly in the interim, as has the video optical disc medium.

If I had to personally choose between a Sony G90 (or equivalent 9" CRT), and a JVC 990, Samsung SP-A900, or better 1080p digital unit, I would pick the fixed pixel projector. Many folks may not know that the Sony G90 originally sold for about $35k (when the dollar was worth more than today). The digital units I mentioned can be had for less than $10k. If I was advising a customer who already owned an 8" or 9" CRT front projector, there would be no hesitation in recommending that he keep it. That would only be the case if the tubes were still in good shape and they understood what it would cost for parts and services to upgrade for currently competitive HD performance.

Most of the residential CRT front projection systems I've seen in my area (installed by other companies) used screens that were too large, and/or never set up and calibrated properly. At this late stage, I would expect many such projectors to need the tubes replaced. Many of these poorly implemented systems have been over driving the tubes for years. Replacing the tubes results in the need for a completely new setup and calibration service for every scan rate and aspect ratio. All these parts and services are not cheap. Then you still don't have a new projector. Other things can go bad sooner or later.

Can you tell me what CRT projector can reproduce rec709 HD standard color specifications?

How many CRT projectors can really produce a 1920 x 1080p resolution image on a 16x9 screen?

What CRT projectors can produce at least 12 fL of screen brightness, on an eight foot wide, 16x9 aspect ratio, 1.3 gain screen, with a 100% white full field image, after calibration? 

How noisy will such a projector be in a room sized for an eight foot wide screen?

How wide of a CinemaScope ratio, constant image height screen can such a projector be expected to fill, and still do 12 fL at 100% white?

In a CIH setup, how likely will there be uneven phosphor aging in the 4x3 and 16x9 areas of the CRT raster?

These are just some questions that come to my mind when considering the claim made by your thread title. Others may have additional questions. Would you please attempt to answer mine?

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## Moonfly

Threads merged.


----------



## Mr Bob

*Re: Triple gun CRT delivers the best HD available*



Alan Brown said:


> Bob,
> 
> You and I have a lot in common and I respect your experience and abilities, but I can't agree with your thread title. I started selling, designing, installing, and calibrating CRT projection systems before HDTV even became available. I'll grant that a well designed graphics grade CRT projector, with 8" tubes or better, can outperform many current digital projectors in certain regards with HD signals. When you started one of your similar linked threads at AVS, it was in 2006. Low and mid priced digital projectors have improved significantly in the interim, as has the video optical disc medium.
> 
> If I had to personally choose between a Sony G90 (or equivalent 9" CRT), and a JVC 990, Samsung SP-A900, or better 1080p digital unit, I would pick the fixed pixel projector. Many folks may not know that the Sony G90 originally sold for about $35k (when the dollar was worth more than today). The digital units I mentioned can be had for less than $10k. If I was advising a customer who already owned an 8" or 9" CRT front projector, there would be no hesitation in recommending that he keep it. That would only be the case if the tubes were still in good shape and they understood what it would cost for parts and services to upgrade for currently competitive HD performance.
> 
> Most of the residential CRT front projection systems I've seen in my area (installed by other companies) used screens that were too large, and/or never set up and calibrated properly. At this late stage, I would expect many such projectors to need the tubes replaced. Many of these poorly implemented systems have been over driving the tubes for years. Replacing the tubes results in the need for a completely new setup and calibration service for every scan rate and aspect ratio. All these parts and services are not cheap. Then you still don't have a new projector. Other things can go bad sooner or later.
> 
> Can you tell me what CRT projector can reproduce rec709 HD standard color specifications?
> 
> How many CRT projectors can really produce a 1920 x 1080p resolution image on a 16x9 screen?
> 
> What CRT projectors can produce at least 12 fL of screen brightness, on an eight foot wide, 16x9 aspect ratio, 1.3 gain screen, with a 100% white full field image, after calibration?
> 
> How noisy will such a projector be in a room sized for an eight foot wide screen?
> 
> How wide of a CinemaScope ratio, constant image height screen can such a projector be expected to fill, and still do 12 fL at 100% white?
> 
> In a CIH setup, how likely will there be uneven phosphor aging in the 4x3 and 16x9 areas of the CRT raster?
> 
> These are just some questions that come to my mind when considering the claim made by your thread title. Others may have additional questions. Would you please attempt to answer mine?
> 
> Best regards and beautiful pictures,
> Alan Brown, President
> CinemaQuest, Inc.
> A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate
> 
> "Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


Nice to hear from you, Alan. I have read lots of your stuff, tho it's been years since we've crossed paths. I bow to your higher knowledge of such things, you have levels of involvement in this industry that I can only dream of. I am just a calibrator, trying to do the best by my big screen owners.

I have changed the title of my thread. Unfortunately it does not "take" automatically everywhere, so lots of the replies will continue to contain the original title, can't do anything about that.

Is the changed title satisfactory? Hopefully it says more carefully what I was trying to say, without continuing to be going overboard about it all, like I was...

b


----------



## lcaillo

I have pointed out to you before, Bob, that I think your claims are rather zealous. If you review this thread, much of it is taken up with others telling you the same and you waste a lot of time and effort defending your position. I have also pointed out many times that you have made a great contribution to the knowledge that many have about CRT based sets and how to get the most out of them. If you would stick to that kind of content, you would get less blow-back and I think more people would be interested in your threads.

I think Alan summed it up pretty well. Someone who has a well designed system with a properly calibrated CRT based unit has little reason to change unless the unit is aging out in terms of tube performance. In a new install, however, it is hard to justify CRT as a choice, other than for a hobbyist who might pick up a good unit very cheap who likes to tinker.

That said, there are still many CRT based units out there that we continue to service and calibrate that can look far better than most people realize. Focus on that and you will likely find a great deal of interest in your threads with little or no controversy. You have a lot to contribute and it saddens me to see your threads derailed because you're statements are over the top. We have a rather high level of reader here, and you are not likely to ge away with hyperbole without getting called on it.


----------



## Alan Brown

*Re: Triple gun CRT delivers the best HD available*



Mr Bob said:


> Nice to hear from you, Alan. I have read lots of your stuff, tho it's been years since we've crossed paths. I bow to your higher knowledge of such things, you have levels of involvement in this industry that I can only dream of. I am just a calibrator, trying to do the best by my big screen owners.
> 
> I have changed the title of my thread. Unfortunately it does not "take" automatically everywhere, so lots of the replies will continue to contain the original title, can't do anything about that.
> 
> Is the changed title satisfactory? Hopefully it says more carefully what I was trying to say, without continuing to be going overboard about it all, like I was...
> 
> b


I have yet to find the title changed anywhere, so I can't comment on the new version. Effective communication is always a challenge. The vast majority of us struggle with how to say things so our intent is understood as desired. Unfortunately, video consumers are awash in a sea of hyperbole. It's my position that professional display calibrators and educated imaging science practitioners have a mission and duty to refrain from, and even confront, the kinds of deceptive techniques used by marketing departments. 

Many video consumers suffer from habitual cynicism in reaction to all the market deception. This serves as a defensive wall that must be penetrated by those of us who genuinely have a passion for excellence and must persuade such consumers of the value of our products and services. Too often the less qualified get the most sales because they are better at manipulating the uninformed/misinformed market. The popularity of LCD panels is a suitable example. An ignorant and/or confused consumer is a pliable one.

The principled among us must continually strive for clarity and authenticity. Forums such as this one offer a fertile field for the championing of imaging fidelity over subjective preference. The proper goal in display design and calibration must be picture accuracy and artistic integrity. Genuine picture quality must be understood in standard video industry terms, or confusion and misunderstanding ensue. Video value must be quantified in terms of what makes the most right pictures for the money, not what superficially/temporarily titillates, dazzles, or satisfies the ignorant. Relentless education is required to counter non-stop marketing deception. That's why I got involved in this thread. I'm just endeavoring to clarify issues we both care deeply about for our mutual benefit and that of the readers.


----------



## lcaillo

I changed the title on the thread. When the threads were merged, this one was not the one changed. I think all of the posts that used the thread title for a subject have been populated with the change now.


----------



## Mr Bob

No contest! I could not have said any of that any better, Alan, thank you.

The new title is "CRT triple gun projectors do some of the best HD available!"

I believe that states what I was trying to say without any absolutism on my part, which yes, the old title did contain.

Len -

I will try to abide by what you said, it makes total sense. I was not seeing much response to anything I had written here lately, and am glad to see you stating the numbers I was not seeing.

Alan -

Thanks for your insight, from long years in many fields in this industry. It is very valuable, and I hope lots of people are listening, out there.

:sn:

b


----------



## Alan Brown

Mr Bob said:


> No contest! I could not have said any of that any better, Alan, thank you.
> 
> The new title is "CRT triple gun projectors do some of the best HD available!"
> 
> I believe that states what I was trying to say without any absolutism on my part, which yes, the old title did contain.
> 
> Len -
> 
> I will try to abide by what you said, it makes total sense. I was not seeing much response to anything I had written here lately, and am glad to see you stating the numbers I was not seeing.
> 
> Alan -
> 
> Thanks for your insight, from long years in many fields in this industry. It is very valuable, and I hope lots of people are listening, out there.
> 
> :sn:
> 
> b


Much more appropriate title! Thanks for your perspectives on subjects you have devoted yourself to so intently. There's never enough beauty in our world and you have helped many enjoy more of it. Life should be enthusiastically savored. The motion imaging arts inspire and entertain many people in our often stressful culture. People who say, "It's just TV!" have a shallow appraisal of life and the human condition. Art for the common man is a very healthy and potentially elevating concept. As Joe Kane persists in saying, "It's all about the art." 

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## Mr Bob

You got it, Alan. We're all in this together...

:wave:

b

PS - for me it's my Star Trek transporter machine. The more lifelike and realistic and true to the original film the video rendition is, the more the suspension of disbelief is, and the more we get to become swept away from it all.

Maybe even to a galaxy far, far away...

:gulp:

Sometimes after a particularly effective suspension of disbelief session - er, I mean movie - I sit there with my jaw on the floor, panting, still feeling like I was there, in the flesh...


----------



## philmadxx

How do you feed a 1080p picture from a bluray to a CRT? Doesn't it have to have an HDMI input? The older units will not have this, correct? 

That being said, aren't the CRT units disadvantaged because they can't receive the best available signal?

Phil


----------



## Alan Brown

A device called HDFury will convert HDMI at 1080p for the few analog displays that can handle such a scan rate. The vast majority of CRT RPTVs were never built well enough to display 720p. They only had the quality of circuitry to display most of a 1920 x 1080i signal (closer to 1080 x 1400i at best). An excellent explanation of this disappointing reality in consumer HDTVs of the day can be found in an article by Joe Kane from a back issue (issue 68) of 'Widescreen Review,' titled: 'HDTV By The Numbers.' 

Color was another area CRTs were limited. Few could match SMPTE C, let alone the full rec709 HD specs. RPTVs come with their own inescapable problems due to the type of screen construction used. These are just some of the deficiencies found in consumer triple tube CRT displays.


----------



## bambino

Sorry to cut in but i must say this is the first, more then 3 page thread i've read front to back in sometime, very good stuff!


----------



## Mr Bob

philmadxx said:


> How do you feed a 1080p picture from a bluray to a CRT? Doesn't it have to have an HDMI input? The older units will not have this, correct?
> 
> That being said, aren't the CRT units disadvantaged because they can't receive the best available signal?
> 
> Phil


CRT RPTVs were never designed to go any higher than 1080i. The R&D never continued long enough for them to do 1080p, tho that could have been the case if that genre had continued on. Unfortunately that was not to happen.

Ceiling projectors, OTOH, were designed for 1080p and beyond, long before HD had even gone mainstream. So they can do 1080p standing on their heads.

Since HDMI is a digital tranmission and not analog, the HD Fury series is still required in order to get the HD 1080p signal to the ceiling triple gun, which is inherently an analog device. For this mode the RGBHV option of the Fury should be used.

For CRT RPTVs, the self-contained triple gun versions, very few were designed for RGB, most were designed for component only for the highest scanrate ever designed for them, 1080i. So the Fury should be set for outputting component in that case, unless you have one of the few models designed with RGBHV, in which case you can switch the Fury to that modality.


1080i has some advantages over 1080p in that virtually all broadcast transmitted HD is 1080i. But all fixed pixel displays these days bought new are 1080p. Therefore a transcoding process has to be used to play 1080i material on 1080p displays. Some brands do a great job of this, others not so great.

Case in point, digital 1080p displays often have stuttered movement during panning at regular digital refresh rates, like 60Hz and 120 Hz. At 240 Hz you finally get to break mostly free of this, but 240 Hz rated machines are more expensive than 120 Hz and 60 Hz rated machines.

The advantage of sticking to CRT RPTV is that no transcoding has to take place, it plays 1080i just fine. No stuttered movement, and no worries about how high the refresh rate is. Just super smooth sailing.


Again, ceiling projectors don't need to worry about it, they do 1080p just fine, have none of the worries of CRT RPTVs. This thread was not about CRT RPTV. It was about targeting those owners who have CRT ceiling pjs and don't realize the gold mine they are sitting on. Ceiling pjs do HD just fine, at the highest of HD scanrates available to the consumer - 1080p. I just couldn't sit by and continue to watch perfectly good ceiling pjs being torn down from the ceiling and dumped by the wayside for the newer technologies when they were eminently capable of 1080p without even breaking a sweat. This is happening as we speak, every day. Some installation entities won't even talk to me because whenever they encounter a triple gun CRT ceiling pj they simply "tear it out" without blinking and without ever once looking back. They don't want to hear from someone capable of saving that "old" equipment, they want it out of the way so they can do their retailer role.

My pleas to keep them going fall on deaf ears when the new digital replacement projectors will make those installation entities uncounted additional thousands of dollars. Only when an owner has already shelled out his many thousands way back then - wanting a permanent display that will stand the test of time - and does not want to necessarily shell out* another* many thousands all over again, do I get the call to save those projectors.

Those "older" CRT projectors *do* stand the test of time. That's all...



b


----------



## Alan Brown

Mr Bob said:


> .....Ceiling projectors, OTOH, were designed for 1080p and beyond, long before HD had even gone mainstream. So they can do 1080p standing on their heads.....
> 
> Again, ceiling projectors don't need to worry about it, they do 1080p just fine, have none of the worries of CRT RPTVs. This thread was not about CRT RPTV. It was about targeting those owners who have CRT ceiling pjs and don't realize the gold mine they are sitting on. Ceiling pjs do HD just fine, at the highest of HD scanrates available to the consumer - 1080p. I just couldn't sit by and continue to watch perfectly good ceiling pjs being torn down from the ceiling and dumped by the wayside for the newer technologies when they were eminently capable of 1080p without even breaking a sweat.......b


Let's be clear. Not all CRT front projectors that are HD capable can handle 1080p. Only the very best graphics grade units can. I'm not aware of any 8" CRTs that could produce a small enough spot size to fully resolve 1920 x 1080p. Are you? Most of the CRTs in homes are likely just 7" models. 

This doesn't even touch on the lack of brightness from CRTs, compared to the newer digital units. The larger screen sizes that true 1080p justifies can't be illuminated to SMPTE recommendations without double stacking 9" models. Now we're talking really big bucks!


----------



## Mr Bob

Alan Brown said:


> Let's be clear. Not all CRT front projectors that are HD capable can handle 1080p. Only the very best graphics grade units can. I'm not aware of any 8" CRTs that could produce a small enough spot size to fully resolve 1920 x 1080p. Are you? Most of the CRTs in homes are likely just 7" models.


True, on the "fully resolve" part of it. But being able to handle it and being able to fully resolve it are 2 different things.

In an ideal world, full resolution of a scanrate would be the only game in town. But most owners of ceiling pjs are not that picky, to the tune of feeling the need to buy new just because their pj doesn't *fully* resolve it. Even mostly resolving 1080p still gives you an incredibly excellent image, head and shoulders above anything close to it. Certainly one not requiring spending thousands of dollars to improve.

I find that owners of ceiling pjs are not just 7" gun owners, that they are all over the map on the size of their CRTs. But no, I would not want to try to shoot a 10' screen with 7" guns, even double-stacked. It just wouldn't have that resolution capacity. For a 7" gun, 7'-8' would probably be the biggest screen I would want to try to dial in, depending on the brand.



> This doesn't even touch on the lack of brightness from CRTs, compared to the newer digital units. The larger screen sizes that true 1080p justifies can't be illuminated to SMPTE recommendations without double stacking 9" models. Now we're talking really big bucks!


Right. Image size is a critical part of the puzzle. To really enjoy 1080p you'd want it on a bigger sized screen, a 7' screen just wouldn't do the trick. And since changing the size of the screen is in direct inverse proportion to how much light it will radiate, size becomes critical. Doubling your screen size automatically takes the light level down by half.

But blackness of the blacks needs to be factored in as well. CRTs need lighting replicating mall movie theaters to look right, and when that's the case that's no sweat, and CRTs deliver flawless blacks. In contrast, the newer lamp-driven units are quite challenged on their blacks compared to CRT. The higher the brightness of the image because of being lamp driven, the other side of the coin is how much more challenging it is to keep the blacks black, under the higher lighting conditions. 

Double stacking is the answer for CRT, yes, and it is incredibly expensive. But doable, esp. with the reduced prices of used CRT ceiling pjs these days.

And when accomplished, incredible. Cliff in Indiana tried a G90 triple stack and wound up with over 525,000:1 contrast ratio! The difference between his G90 double stack and adding one more for a triple stack was palpable, even in online screenshots!

I think we're essentially agreeing here, for the most part...

:bigsmile:

b


----------



## Harold Dale

I've always gone back and forth on weather I want a CRT or LCD/DLP projector. My biggest thing is I'm not really sure I can get a CRT that can fully resolve 1080p for 2k or less like I can with LCD/DLP. Then there's the countless hours of setup and tweaking. I think I remember that getting them setup professionally costs a lot more as well, not to mention there are probably a dwindling number of ISF calibrators that deal with CRT sets.


----------



## lcaillo

Where are you located. Some of us still like to calibrate and align CRT based units. There is still a great deal of expertise out there.


----------



## Harold Dale

Ohio, near Youngstown about an hour or so from Cleveland. 

I talked to Curt Palme and he says the Marquee 8500 would be a good candidate at my budget. I just need to find out what the throw distance is needed to get a 100-110" 2.37:1 screen. I have to to see if I can make one fit in my room here. Obviously when we buy a house and I build a dedicated room it'd be easy to fit. For now I'm building a make shift theater.

Curt said it wouldn't take much setup because he sets the tubes up before he ships them.


----------



## lcaillo

Chad Billheimer is in Dayton, and I know he travels the entire region. You don't get much better than Chad, at least according to his reputation. I know he takes CRT seriously. There is also a guy named Tim in Cleveland, but I don't recall his name and don't know how good he is with CRTs. I would call around to the people in your area listed as trained by ISF, THX, or Spectracal. Ask them to tell you about their experience with CRT projectors.


----------



## Harold Dale

What's the general cost to calibrate and setup a CRT projector like the Marquee 8500 or maybe an NEC XG 110?


----------



## lcaillo

If I was doing the work it would be at least $225 and likely no more than $450, but it depends on the specifics of the job. It is always best to discuss the details of your system with the prospective professionals that you may use. Call Chad. He will likely be your best choice and will be happy to discuss it with you, I am sure.


----------



## HiTracey

I'm still a supporter of the CRT image and their ability to display HD. However, my major gripe has always been the brightness, or lack thereof. I've recently moved to a screen half the size, and a total blackout/dark coloured pure a/v room (from the lounge).

A huge improvement, but if left me wanting more. It's taken a while but I've now triple 'stacked' CRTs (side by side) without too much fancy electronics. It's a simple overlay rather than any blending. Contrast ratio and brightness now stunning, given the screen size not large (10ft width).

If I were starting again, I'd probably blend the outer projectors and overlay the middle one, just to squeeze out every last drop, but I'm at budget's end.

The final task is to build the hush box and extraction, as it all presently sounds like a jumbo jet taxiing above me, and with a lot of class A amplification cooking, I'm cooking too.


----------

