CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4899 Location: Flower Mound, TX

Deleted due to the fact that this post runs counter to the site position that "CRTs are always great and digitals always suck."

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4899 Location: Flower Mound, TX

Deleted due to the fact that this post runs counter to the site position that "CRTs are always great and digitals always suck."

VideoGrabber · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 933 Location: Michigan

Thanks for all the answers, Dave.

I was a bit concerned there was only a non-reproducable path to where you're at, and you addressed that well. And, no, I have no problems with used. I'm sure, as time goes on, there will be even more "acceptable" options, and opportunities.

With the proper guidelines, folks will know what to look for, thanks to you. And the big revelation that it's possible at all to get a CIH scope image a former CRT-owner is happy with, at an affordable price... which I think is the main point you wanted to share.

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4899 Location: Flower Mound, TX

Last part up. Have fun guys.

CRT_Ben · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 1684 Location: Northern Virginia

Thanks for completing this, Dave. I was one of those on the sidelines, watching and learning. We appreciate the education!

VideoGrabber · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 933 Location: Michigan

Thanks for completing the odyssey, Dave. Well worth the trip.

A couple concerns...
> bulbs lose brightness as you use them <

I seem to recall reading something like half brightness at ~500 hours(?) on some/most bulbs (help me out here)? If it's anywhere near that ballpark, it doesn't seem like it would be long before your CIH display was just over 6 ftL, and even with the high boost would be only ~7.8 ftL. Isn't that going to be a problem for the guy who said how great 16 was, and he could never go back to 12?

> As a point of comparison here are typical CRT projector output in 4:3 mode:
8” machines do about 180-210 ANSI Lumens <

Aren't you falling into the common trap here of using ANSI lumens with a CRT? I.e., digitals have an essentially constant output, but CRTs are highly dependent on the %age of the screen that's illuminated (because their output is mostly limited by beam current). So at 10% coverage, CRTs are ridiculously high output (e.g., 1200 non-ANSI lumens), while at 10% digitals are exactly the same as they are at 100%. And while 10% isn't really a good metric to use (selected by manufs to make their numbers look good), in reality, most film content runs around 20-30%, and TV-ish content ~30-40%. This means that the _effective_ light output from a CRT will be much higher than the 100% ANSI reading would indicate. If we had lumens at 30% output, that would be a lot more reasonable method of evaluation.

> Let’s say you are using an 8” on that screen (8 foot wide, 16:9 format), you are looking at: (180/36)*1.3=6.5 ftL <

And yet Kal has measured his output at ~12 ftL (see his award-winning Calibration series), with a gain closer to 1.2. Your implication (seems to be) that he's off by a factor of 2. Then to get the "desired" 12 ftL, he'd need to go TWICE as bright as he currently does. While it's possible he may feel a bit more brightness wouldn't hurt, I seriously doubt that he'd want anywhere near twice his current brightness levels.

Thus the fallacy of using ANSI lumens to evaluate CRT PJs.

> CRTs have great on/off especially with gamma mods but horrid ANSI (LC typically about 130:1 AC about 80:1). <

Is it really THAT bad? That sounds pathetic. I'll have to win a meter and test that one for myself. Wink

That doesn't sound right. In fact, even the ratio sounds far off. It's fairly well accepted that LC over AC buys you ~30% better CR (USPL papers). Which would either put AC at 100:1, or LC at ~104:1. That's just picking nits, but I find it difficult to believe it's that poor (not that it's less than digitals).

Thanks again for a well-done series.

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4899 Location: Flower Mound, TX

Deleted due to the fact that this post runs counter to the site position that "CRTs are always great and digitals always suck."

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4899 Location: Flower Mound, TX

Deleted due to the fact that this post runs counter to the site position that "CRTs are always great and digitals always suck."

Nashou66 · Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 16171 Location: West Seneca NY

Umm, Ummm Ummm? Did I miss something? Shocked

Athanasios

emdawgz1 · Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 7949

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4899 Location: Flower Mound, TX

**Curt Palme** · Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject:

VideoGrabber · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 933 Location: Michigan

> No one really cared about the thread ... <

Disappointed to hear that I am no one. Sad

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject:

Zebu Fellenz · Joined: 21 Dec 2006 Posts: 2567

CRT_Ben · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 1684 Location: Northern Virginia

Well, that sucks. You guys can clap and say good riddance but *when* I switch from my 9500LC at some point, I'll at least have some fundamentals laid out by someone who's opinion I trust. Hell, I almost switched now as I'm moving into my new home, because with 1,000 different home improvement projects waiting for me I really didn't relish the thought of how long it would take to mount and setup the PJ, and be waiting during that time with only a 27" SDTV.