Eisemann-Theater Simulation Grade Tubes better than VW1000ES

CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum
A forum with a sense of fun and community for Home Theater enthusiasts!
[ Products for Sale ] [ FAQ: Hooking it all up ] [ CRT Primer/FAQ ] [ Best/Worst CRT Projectors List ] [ Setup Tips & Manuals ] [ Advanced Procedures ] [ Newsletter ]

Blu-ray disc release list and must-have titles. Buy the latest and best Blu-ray titles to show off in your home theater!

As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers!

Eisemann-Theater Simulation Grade Tubes better than VW1000ES
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> CRT Projectors

Author

Message

Diddern

Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:50 pm Post subject:

mp20748 wrote:

HogPilot wrote:

mp20748 wrote:

HogPilot wrote:

Given that this discussion has centered on video fidelity, it's worthless for that purpose. Accurate calibration - i.e. not by memory/eye alone - is central to the whole debate of comparing displays in the first place (caveat: I still hold that screen shots are an almost worthless endeavor for that purpose, outside of a handful of very specific items). Despite it being completely irrelevant to this discussion, you continue to bring it up. It's proven to be nothing more than an obfuscatory subject. Let's move on to more relevant, productive topics

Oh so you see it as me being the one to want to prove the video fidelity through the use of screenshots. I agree it would be worthless for that purpose and have been saying that over and over, yet it is I who copied a shot of mine from the Screenshots thread and posted it here for comparison..lol

I'm simply using your words. You have stated within the last several pages - to include this post I'm quoting - that things such as "black," "deep black," (care to explain how the former differentiates from the latter, or even just provide a definition of both?), and "flesh tones" can all be assessed using screen shots. This is wholly incorrect. None of these things can be assessed via screen shots, for reasons already explained here time and time again.

mp20748 wrote:

I as you also mention, based my part on only one ("handful of very specific items") object for discussion, that was agreed on. Did I also comment on anything other than that?

Not one item that you claim to be assessable via screen shot can be done, outside of calibrating every single display and capture unit in the chain to incredibly tight tolerances. Even then, it's highly likely that the end result will be someone looking at these things on an LCD computer monitor with no better than 1000:1 real world on/off CR and abhorrent black levels. To say that one can judge "blacks" and "deep blacks" (again, a differentiation/definition of both might help everyone else's confusion on what these terms mean within the context of this conversation) on such a low contrast display directly opposes the idea that high CR is critical to attaining high image fidelity.

mp20748 wrote:

And how many times would I have to say "you cannot use screenshots for comparison purposes" and "we are using cheap point and shoot cameras" and "screenshots cannot be used as a quantitative means of evaluation"

You keep saying that, and then you go and talk about judging things that can't be judged via screenshots, so I highly doubt you're doing more than repeating a mantra. See my previous paragraph for how contradictory your statements have been.

mp20748 wrote:

So having fun with the guys result in me saying something I've never said other than "black' "deep black "and "Flesh tones" you think maybe I've been doing them long enough to know about these three things?

This is a classic "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. You're attempting to dodge legitimate criticisms by simply citing that you've been doing this for a while. One can just as easily do things wrong for a long time as they can do them correctly. The length of time for which you've been doing things incorrectly, misapplying knowledge, or utilizing falsities doesn't magically make them less wrong.

mp20748 wrote:

And any discussions on calibration and equipment, I'll not get into and think it's an entirely useless discussion, when even you yourself talked about the merits of screenshots. Why even bother to bring up proper calibration on on the subject, when we're talking about the use of cheap point and shoot cameras. Plus, I made it clear, my PJ was NOT calibrated!!

You dove into the calibration conversation several pages back - by attempting to correct another forum member with your ideas about what does and does not qualify as calibration, nonetheless. Now you're bailing on the discussion when your knowledge of it and how it applies to the topic are being questioned? There would be no need to bail if you had a sufficient working knowledge on the subject.

And exactly how does one compare "flesh tones" between two different projectors in person - let alone via screen shots - when one of the two projectors isn't even calibrated? This is so nonsensical that it boggles the mind.

mp20748 wrote:

It's not my field of expertise, and has never been.

On that, everyone here can agree. Of course, "field of expertise" is a bridge or two too far - I think most would agree that your knowledge of video calibration on any level is tenuous, at best.

Hey Hog, here's my answer to all of this:

It ain't worth my time. Make of it what you want, because this whole thread is a joke if you ask me and anyone taking anything in it seriously needs to step away from it. Why start majoring in the minors, when the original point in the beginning of the thread is dumb (CRT vs Digital). However, Batman and Robin keeps showing up with the latest and greatest in a present digital technology, when we've been trying to let them know they are not in Gotham, and we go on to let them know we have no interest whatsoever. And to prove my point, how many people here have inquired about the latest X500? First it was an 4K Sony that was so great, but when they found out there was little to no 4K material and had black level issues they got rid of them. Now we must know about how great their new JVC X500 is.. Rolling Eyes

These guys have come in this forum (once more) and have been very rude and disrespectful, they have most arrogantly told us our CRT projectors are too old and worthless, to even posting a picture of a grave. Yet, you want to pick out one from the CRT community to reprimand and/or point out the possible inaccuracies in their post. Why don't you kindly direct them away from this forum instead to keep down the confusion. Or help us to remind them that we're not interested.

And I would say, if they come back the next time, at least let it be an entirely different technology, because that's what we're really waiting on. We already know that anything present is just going through an ongoing upgrade path, and being sold much like how Windows have been ripping us off since the 90's with Windows this that and the other, when none of them were really finished products.

And also, in their pursuit to show us the greatness of the X500, they once again failed. Regardless of all of it's new bells and whistles, it's still just a glorified version of Windows 98 to us....please, when some new technology comes out let us know.

The X500 - No

1.
Hi this Now Robin or batman or f*ck your mamma or dildo or wortless or homo and all the words you guys call us, we are rude and disrespectful ? my god what a looser.

2. The Sony 4K is so far from your knowledge, I have no idea what you talk about. And is in another league. And for us changing just that we want to try other things. So your normal bull talk.

3. Time move forwards but you stoped at 2006 when you started on this forum. I remember you back then.
Doing the same things just like now, but that was a different time. And things do get better. Specially projectors for home use.

4. And to all your well thought through statements here on this forum you should be proud. Letting all know how much you know.

5. About the x500 just to make a point to this topic that you do not need a 30000 dollar machine to crush a 9" crt.

6. And something we agree on, this forum and topic is just bull****. We proved that. So we agree on something.

redfox001

Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:09 pm Post subject:

I still remember when my mother for the first time saw my 909 she often came to watch a movie on my digital projectors I had before that. She looked very surprised oh my, what a depth in that image she said like it is 3d. I had not said anything about 3d like depth but I completely agreed. Digital is flat you come with explanations I come with witnesses. Perhaps start a winesses war from people that have seen both _________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax

Diddern

Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:33 pm Post subject:

redfox001 wrote:

I still remember when my mother for the first time saw my 909 she often came to watch a movie on my digital projectors I had before that. She looked very surprised oh my, what a depth in that image she said like it is 3d. I had not said anything about 3d like depth but I completely agreed. Digital is flat you come with explanations I come with witnesses. Perhaps start a winesses war from people that have seen both Very Happy

When you bring your mama I rest my case you are so cute.

The 3D debt In a digital vs CRT does not exist compared to a good digital ,
because of better ansicontrast, MTF, higher contrast, correct colors to HDTV standard, much more dynamics, more punch, how bla bla when knowing this , you still stand by your statement?
Right word for you totally cluless if yes.

But to make you happy I won't force you to stop believing your laughable claim.

If you are smart now stop you making a fool out of yourself.
Speak up just proves me more right.

I have also seen flat digitals projectors but that was in 2002 or 2003 don't remember.
But then the Pixels was as big as a coin on the screen.
But then again wake up it's 2006. We talk about high modern professional digital projectors for home use.

redfox001

Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:30 pm Post subject:

Bring in your witnesses _________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax

redfox001

Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 pm Post subject:

Here is another witness. It is mr_ro_co
https://www.curtpalme.com/forum_archived/viewtopic.php@t=36550.html

Quote:

My personal opinion:

The JVC looked a bit artificial to me. Hypersharp, bright, but depth of field was a bit 2D and dynamic range was lacking. It was washed out looking. But of course I know that calibrated it would look much better.

_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax

Diddern

Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:36 pm Post subject:

redfox001 wrote:

Bring in your witnesses Wink

LOL

Ok you win, when your mommy says so I believe you.
I putting up my old CRT again thanks!!

redfox001

Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:41 pm Post subject:

Diddern wrote:

redfox001 wrote:

Bring in your witnesses Wink

LOL

Ok you win, when your mommy says so I believe you.
I putting up my old CRT again thanks!!

Yeah you are a great BS artist Wink

_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax

Diddern

Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:28 pm Post subject:

redfox001 wrote:

Diddern wrote:

redfox001 wrote:

Bring in your witnesses Wink

LOL

Ok you win, when your mommy says so I believe you.
I putting up my old CRT again thanks!!

Yeah you are a great BS artist Wink

You started the bull**** not me.
The debt is actually the biggest difference. Like I said because of MTF, sharpness, Clearness, dynamics and so on.
Together with a Sony HW55, Sony VW90, VW95, Sony VW300,500,1000,1100 JVC x35,x500,x700 x900 sim lumis 3ds, sim M150, even a optoma led PJ and so on will be visible better on debt even your mommy will see that when testing.

It is simply not possible my little mommy boy, todays tec is way past crt even with mod up your ass.
But to MP and other that make mod and sell, mod does changes so your crt do get some better.

And trust me many see and read this. And can confirm all Andreas I I say. Why will we troll? I do not earn anything on saying this. Not one cent.

Want me to stop! Then topic of this thread must be changed to reality. I am in a CRT forum that claims that CRT are better than a VW1000 and no one can bring anything but sh*t throw to me and Andreas. So we have every right to confront you guys. With fact and fact and truth and basic knowledge about HD picture quality 4K and 1080P that your bellowed crts cant handle at all..

Andreas21

Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 7:51 pm Post subject:

Curt Palme wrote:

Sony VPL-VW100 ("Ruby")

Full specs

OK, so I went down to DarinP's place on Weds, and upon entering his house it looks like he's set up for digitals more or less the way I am for CRTs.
Screens are everywhere.. Smile

There's a 128" wide in the living room, and a 10' wide Da Lite 2.8 gain, 2.35:1 ratio in the screening room along with a second 8' wide on an adjacent wall in the same screening room for smaller screen viewing. I'll stick with the screen that I saw the Ruby on. It was a 2.5 gain screen designed for digital use.

Now, keep in mind that this was a very sunny day, and I went from my car to his HT room within about 2 minutes. Now let me describe the room: It was COMPLETELY black. Black carpeting (covered with black velvet?), black ceiling, black velvet walls, even velvet on the sides of his speakers so the shiny finish wouldn't reflect light. This literally was a black hole with no reflections whatsoever. WAF: very low.

Now, since my eyes weren't used to the dark, Darin guided me to a chair dead center of the screen. There was just a tiny light at the HD DVD player so all I could see was a bit of the back of the chair, and I had no idea how this room was set up. To me it looked like he had room about 12 chairs on a sloped floor and the screen looked to be about 20-25 feet away. SWEET!

He then powered up the Ruby with a regular DVD player to start, and he told me that this was 'just' a DVD source. We viewed a clip from the Star Wars 5 film, and it looked pretty damn good right off the bat. The black levels weren't perfect, but they were better than literally all digitals that I can remember seeing, better than the Qualia and heck, better than some CRTs that I've seen with the brightness cranked way up.

Smile

Unfortunately I also saw red misconvergence immediately. The red image was shifted up and to the right, enough to be noticed in about 50% of what I watched. The blue looked to be OK, then again red misconvergence is always more visible than slight blue shift. But that aside, the image was great.
When we looked at more shots, I did see what I'd complained about at avs in the past: In scenes with bright faces, the bright spots looked a bit jaundiced, or as if the actor was about to break out with a bad case of acne, that his face or skin had oily splotches on it. I pointed this out to Darin, and he saw it too. Since I'd seen it on other digital projectors, this was not necessarily a fault of the Ruby.

Then Darin brought up the lights. My initial perception of the room was way way off. It was about a 18'X 13' room, not sloped, with a single seat in it.
As I said, black velvet all around. The seat was 12' away from the screen, not 20'. Amazing what zero ambient light can do to your perception.

Darin then switched to a multitude of HD DVDs. I saw clips from Serenity, Training Day and others. As he pointed out, the first generation HD units are slow in reading the discs, and apparently can be glitchy at times. The HD DVD was putting out 1080i which the Ruby was then reassembling (as it were) the image to 1080p.

There's no question that there was more detail in the image than with a standard DVD player, but as Darin mentioned, during another demo that he had at his place in mid demo during a break, he switched out the HD DVD of Serenity with the standard DVD version. Only one person noticed the lower resolution of the image.

Now it's interesting, I did not notice the acne/oil type sheen of people's faces with the HD DVD source. Am I seeing a limitation of the signal source or limitations in the digital display technology when I see this on other digital projectors? I have not seen this issue at all with CRT images.

Darin took off the neutral density filter from the Ruby about 1/2 way through the demo. The light output of the Ruby increased about 40% or so (my perception, measurements would show that the light output doubles with that filter removed), with a slight elevation of the absolute blacks as expected. Keeping in mind that I found the brightness level to be fine with the filter in place on a 10' wide screen (albeit in a perfectly black room), I thus believe the Ruby to have adequate brightness for HT applications. Those that want to view the Ruby with lots of ambient light will be disappointed. By my estimation, the Ruby puts out about as much light as any 8 or 9" EM focusing set.

One other slight flaw that I noticed with the Ruby was that the second 'D'
in the 'HD DVD' logo in the lower right corner was tinted pinkish as compared to the rest of the logo that was more neutral. Darin had said that he'd noticed this as well, but that he wasn't sure whether the discoloration was due to the signal source or the Ruby itself. I didn't notice this discoloration in any movie scences.

Due to time constraints, we didn't put up any test patterns that might have narrowed the source of this very minor fault down.

Darin also showed me a clip from the second LOTR movie of of Wormtounge'svery dark coat, but the Ruby showed a pattern in that black coat, something that a CRT without gamma correction might not display. We talked about the pros and cons of the various technologies, and being a guy that calls it like it is, I offer this:

My belief is that when you're dealing in high end display technologies, you can easily spend dozens of hours carefully selecting signals sources and fine tuning any projector of any type, spend thousands on accessories only to have a fellow enthusiast come in and comment that 'gee, I don't like that fleshtone setting', or ' I'm not sure if your gamma is set correctly'. As I've told many potential CRT customers that ask what make and model is the BEST projector, it really becomes subjective based on what the individual viewer likes to see. A flawless image will not make up for a bad movie or poor acting.. Smile

Is HD DVD better than standard DVDs? Yes. Am I going to dump my current 400 DVD collection? No. Will I buy a $600 first generation HD DVD player that is glitchy? No.

The Ruby: Is it the best digital image that I've seen? Yes. Is it perfect or better than CRT in every aspect? No.

The bulb life as I understand it is about 2000 hours, and the bulb costs $1000 USD. As per many avs postings in the >$3500 forum, Ruby owners (including Darin) are noticing dimming of the bulb in as low as 200 hours. BTW, Darin's Ruby had about 330 hours on it, and was plenty bright with the ND filter on it.
Will every Ruby owner get 2000 hours out of their bulb? I doubt it. Unlike the Qualia, there is apparently only a 90 day warranty on the bulb, and no spare bulb is included when you purchase a Ruby. This to me will make me a Ruby owner only when they show up in an as is condition on eBay for $500 or less, and only if I know that I can buy a bulb when that time comes.

We called it quits after about 90 minutes or so. I walked away from the demo now understanding what all the hype was about, that Ruby that I saw at the
Sony store in Vegas was a joke compared to what I saw here. Hopefully Sony
will be able to address the convergence and other quality control issues that are posted over at avs with the next generation of Rubys that come out.
For the person that wants a plug and play device, the Ruby will be a good choice. Will the Ruby still be playing in 3000 hours when my 9500 LC (or Barco 808 or NEC XG or Sony 1031) is just starting to show a hint of tube wear, or will bulbs be available for the Ruby in 7-8 years? I'm not sure.

One last note about the demo: I commented on the way out that the sound system sounded pretty good. While we didn't crank it up, the bass was solid and the dialouge was clear. Darin laughed and turned up the lights. The 'impressive' speakers were generic Sony tower speakers purchased at Costco, driven by a Pioneer surround receiver. The bass however was supplemented by a kickass SVS subwoofer. This actually showed me once again that you don't need to spend thousands on top notch equipment to get really good results on an audio or video level.

Comments? Smile

It is quite fun to read this from may 2006, and let me repeat that may 2006.

Just to remind you the Ruby is a real sh*tty digital compared to todays standards, I have actually owned one and know this. Wink

_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas

Diddern

Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:19 pm Post subject:

This just explains that 2015 is still 2004 in the guys on this forum . And live still back then and can't acept that things get better. Curt saw it even then, but not on everything, and that PJ is really bad compared today, then really really bad. CRT technology is still fun for entusiasts and no one will take that away from you. And start to acept that things have become much better. Why am I not shocked!!!

redfox001

Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:27 pm Post subject:

Seems that my mother argument did it _________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax

Diddern

Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:32 pm Post subject:

redfox001 wrote:

Seems that my mother argument did it Laughing

I told you that when your mother says so I believe.
Hallelujah.

Diddern

Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:36 pm Post subject:

Yes, thank god so have a good weekend. Can you tell everybody what digital PJ you had before your CRT. Then read Curts post from 2006 repeat may 2006.

Reddman

Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 70
Location: South Carolina

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:38 pm Post subject:

Why is this thread still open??

Jeremy112

Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 2649
Location: Fond du Lac, WI

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:39 pm Post subject:

Reddman wrote:

Why is this thread still open??

Ah, but that is the one true question that no one here can answer Razz

_________________
When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it Wink

Reddman

Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 70
Location: South Carolina

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:42 pm Post subject:

Jeremy112 wrote:

Reddman wrote:

Why is this thread still open??

Ah, but that is the one true question that no one here can answer Razz

It's degenerated into pointless name calling and insults Thumbs Down

A mod REALLY needs to step in and close this down.

Diddern

Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:45 pm Post subject:

I agree 100%

HogPilot

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383

TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD

Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:23 am Post subject:

mp20748 wrote:

HogPilot wrote:

mp20748 wrote:

HogPilot wrote:

mp20748 wrote:

I as you also mention, based my part on only one ("handful of very specific items") object for discussion, that was agreed on. Did I also comment on anything other than that?

mp20748 wrote:

It's not my field of expertise, and has never been.

On that, everyone here can agree. Of course, "field of expertise" is a bridge or two too far - I think most would agree that your knowledge of video calibration on any level is tenuous, at best.

Hey Hog, here's my answer to all of this:

It ain't worth my time.

What a disappointingly defensive non-answer!

To summarize your continually contradictory double-speak:

1. This isn't worth your time, except for the 60-odd pages and many weeks you've been feverishly responding in this thread.

2. Screen shots are worthless, except for comparing one person's shot of an uncalibrated CRT to another person's shot of a calibrated X500 to look at black, deep black, and flesh tones - in other words, some of the most useless things to compare in screen shots. And we still have no clue what the hell the definitions or differences between "black" and "deep black" are.

3. Proper calibration - which is essential to comparing displays - has to be to a known standard, unless it's by eye using one's memory, and then you consider the brain's known grossly inaccurate and easily influenced memories to be an acceptable "standard." Which is exactly the opposite of calibration.

4. Diddern and Andreas21 are rude and disrespectful, yet aside from calling out well-known faults in CRT, some of the ridiculous methodologies thrown out here, and some of the ridiculous posters here, the only name-calling has been almost exclusively from you and Kurt, and it has been quite vitriolic.

5. You've avoided every single request by me and others for clarifying information on some of these positions above - in fact, you seem to desparately bring up any tangential subject to avoid discussing pertinent information that you know would weaken your already flimsy, waffling position.

You seem to be able to make up your mind on almost nothing here, and are rather hell-bent on saying anything in the moment in a futile attempt to win some argument. An argument, mind you, that cannot be won.

As some here have already said (some repeatedly), there is no single "best" display; they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Having the former pointed out shouldn't blindly turn one into a fanboy, and having the latter pointed out shouldn't make one feel the need to be defensive and attack others. Correcting FUD and old information is certainly one thing; blindly and vociferously railing for one display technology over another in an absolute sense to defend a personal choice just mucks up otherwise useful threads.

Oh, and I'll point out - also as others have - the title and initial post of this thread involved pitting a CRT vs. a 4K digital PJ, with a heavy dose of hyperbole and still unsubstantiated claims blindly in favor of the former. Perhaps if you don't like reading such comparisons, you should stay out of a thread whose entire premise is such a comparison, or at least correcting how stupid it is.
_________________

ecrabb wrote:

Curt Palme wrote:

Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure.

He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.

SC

Curt Palme
CRT Tech

Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC

TV/Projector: All of them!

Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:54 am Post subject:

Why is this thread not closed? Because you.... guys... keep adding to it.

Diddern

Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway

Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 7:40 am Post subject:

Curt Palme wrote:

Why is this thread not closed? Because you.... guys... keep adding to it.

	CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> CRT Projectors	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 Next
Page 119 of 122


	You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum

Suport our site by purchasing through this link. We thank you!

[ Products for Sale ] [ FAQ: Hooking it all up ] [ CRT Primer/FAQ ] [ Best/Worst CRT Projectors List ] [ Setup Tips & Manuals ] [ Advanced Procedures ] [ Newsletter ]