Originally Posted by Tubejunke (Post 3130612)

I am guessing that the writer is referring to this topic in relation to his specific age group. With that I would agree, but I'm not positive that's what he means. It actually backs up one of the possibilities I mentioned in starting this thread of why the specific "roundie" color set has such a big fan base. The age group that saw all of this come along could easily want a piece of a fond old memory around. Inversely, I mentioned I think in a second post that most of my sets are older than I am. So, being a kid in the 70s, my memories of these sets were just that they were just another set. Or later junk... yep.

By the time I took my high school electronics training in the early 80s. our donation area in the classroom was well populated with them. However, even then I remember specifically wanting to work on those just because they seemed more interesting than the other almost as old rectangulars which I had no interest in. I still think there is more to this than nostalgia really. I mean how many people want their first touch tone phone or cell phone back? Or their first computer for that matter. I think a lot of us have some training in electronics and simply enjoy the challenge of getting an old TV or radio going again and preserving it for whatever reason. That would sort of explain me, but I have never been able to explain even to myself the love of TV and radio in some cases much older than I am. It just comes naturally.....:thmbsp:

Originally Posted by rca2000 (Post 3130639)

It was NOT just you....I still have fond memories of my 25MC33, seeing shows like "the spy who loved me" 2001", Dark star", Caddyshack", Airport 79" Coma", "You only live twice"...along with a LOT of mission impossible episodes and such. ... and MANY others--for about a year--on that wonderful set. It was OTA only, and only a few channels. BUT what we had ...just looked SOOO good !!

Zenith claimed they "had something different and special" in their roundie set--from the 29JC20 on...IMHO....they DEFINITELY did !!

Originally Posted by zeno (Post 3130546)

To fix the shading you just need to replace the filter cap on the
200 V line. Usually a 4.7mfd use a 450 V. One of the most
common problems on ANY color TV.

73 Zeno:smoke:

Originally Posted by DaveWM (Post 3130722)

Zeno is that the video out screen decoupler? I see a 2uf on the 160v line that feeds the video out screen (ctc-12)

Originally Posted by etype2 (Post 3130990)

Here is a comparison. First photo is from Ed Reitan's CBS field sequential television. Correction: Photography from the screen of John Folsom's 1950 CBS Labs RX-43 CBS Color Receiver as seen on Ed Reitan's website.

Second photo is from a 70 inch 2012 Sharp Quatron LCD.

Originally Posted by Electronic M (Post 3131002)

There are several different video releases of the Wizard of Oz (it's been discussed on VK before) , and there are wild chroma and general picture quality differences between them. The TBS banner at the bottom of that one shot makes me think those two photos were NOT taken from the same video source.

If you took that flatscreen screen shot, and ED did not take his from the same broadcast, then you are likely comparing apples to oranges, rather than apples to apples.

Originally Posted by DaveWM (Post 3131009)

I don't go around check flat screens often, but IIRC there was something about fast movement that did not look right to me. Maybe that is not the case anymore, but like I said I cant remember the last time I looked at one long enough to know if it was still the same.

Originally Posted by etype2 (Post 3131008)

Yes. If you re-read my post, I explained where the two images came from.

The author of this thread said this in part "I have always sort of liked having a working "roundie" color set around for decades now, but i'm not sure why really. I personally think that they can make as decent a picture as most anything else I have seen, but I also think that the flat screens everyone has gone nuts over don't look that great really. Or not great enough for me to spend the money that they at least once commanded at retail."

I disagree that flat panels don't look great, that is why I posted the roundie screenshot and my screenshot.

I would love to see comparison screenshots of the same exact frame from owners of the CT-100 or any other roundie posted here. My screenshot is from a Direct TV satellite transmission. I suspect other screenshots will look better or worse then my shot, depending on the source.

Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald (Post 3131011)

The best comparison is the one I did between an original on my computer
screen (i.e. no TV in between) and my CT-100:

http://www.videokarma.org/showthread...=262176&page=6

This is not a screen shot of the computer. Its the original. The
camera image of the CT-100 was tweeked in Photoshop with
the computer monitor sitting om the CT-100 until the images
on the CT-100 and the computer were identical except for brightness.

This is a test of TV resolution, color, and contrast. What you see
on YOUR computer is an accurate report on the DIFFERENCE between
the original as seen on the computer and the image on the TV.

Originally Posted by Electronic M (Post 3131016)

I just noticed another thing wrong in your comparison the 'roundy' picture is a field sequential set. Field sequential sets are scarce as hens teeth, and are a completely different (and less adjustable) process of color image generation (monochrome CRT with a color wheel spinning in in front of it) than a normal color CRT, and I'd dare say fall outside the most peoples definition of a roundy color set.

I wish I had time to re-read everything, but I don't. :tongue:

I personally strongly dislike flatscreen sets. Non-Gaussian image elements don't look right to me (a certain softness and cross fade from picture element to picture element makes an image look better), I don't like (makes my eyes tired) the flashing nature of image refresh in a flat screen (versus the soft fade of a CRT), and don't get me started on viewing angle limitations of flat screens and all the maladies digital video has built in to it. If I ever go HD I'm getting an HD CRT set.

Originally Posted by etype2 (Post 3131017)

I looked at the three sets of two images on that thread. If I understand correctly, the photos on the left are from the CT-100 and the clearer photos on the right are from the Sony LCD? Or am I wrong?
.

Originally Posted by rca2000 (Post 3130522)

I Have a LOT of 1970's set. Just acquired a 1973 TS-938 Quasar set from Doug a couple of weeks back. It is the one with the SMPS_-WAAYYY before those became "common". Last one I had was in 1988 maybe 89....till now.

1980' sets...a FEW interest me...but not a lot of them. I have one of the RCA CTC-133 sets with that "square tube" from 86 I think, and a couple of the non-dimensia CTC 131 sets. But the Zenith sets from that era do NOT interest me that much.. Most had the 9-160 chassis, or 9-181 or 214 module till maybe 1985 or so...and those do NOT interest me. Shitty flys, Hot chassis, a LOT of wires connecting boards. The tubes were often pretty good though. After those came the 9-516 chassis --cold, but STILL a LOT of long wires running everywhere...

I also have a NAP 25C8 set--from 1987 or so. Good tube--think it works.

But a LOT of 1980's set had hot chassis....and that is a turn OFF for me.

Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald (Post 3131035)

You are wrong.
The clearer photos are photos made with a Canon 7D camera. They
have not been through video. The comparison is beween the original
and images of the CT100. As I said, the CT100s are adjusted so that
when I am looking at the photos of the CT100 on the same Dell monitor,
the images on the monitor look exactly like the CT100. Thus,
the comparison on YOUR computer is also exactly the same difference
between the original and the CT100.

I post images of the same Dorothy scene. These are made with the same camera. This is a dvd, not a Blu-ray. It is output as NTSC and
modulated on a B-T agile modulator. Both sets look at NTSC
true VSB, cut off at 4.2 MHz an -1.25 MHz.

The sharp one is my Sony Bravia 45 inch LCD and the other two
are the CT100. The camera and processing was set for
no sharpening, no noise reduction, no contrast enhancement,
and 5250K. The camera was defocused to smear out the dot structure.
They were 1/6 second exposures, the f-number was set to compensate for
brightness difference. One CT100 image was changed
in one way: the color temp slider in Photoshop was moved to 4850K.
This makes it look bluer. This is probably a better representation of a by eye comparison; apparently the camera, set for non-auto color temp, is being fooled by phosphor differences.

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment...1&d=1428624485

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment...1&d=1428624485

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment...1&d=1428624485

Originally Posted by DaveWM (Post 3131038)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...90491159,d.b2w

I have some pretty good shots from the oz on this video

Originally Posted by etype2 (Post 3131053)

Image in the center looks the most satisfying, well saturated, but slightly warm.

Image on the right looks like you added a blue filter.

Why did you not set the camera to auto exposure and why did you defocus? .

Originally Posted by etype2 (Post 3131054)

I enjoyed your video. The village scenes looked outstanding.

Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald (Post 3131061)

I DID add blue filter to the one on the right. The filter I added would
correct 4850K to 5250K. I probably should have used 6000K. I will redo.

Why not auto exposure? Because then the comparison would not be real.
This is VERY important ... if you use autoexposure it will automatically change
the color temperature setting.

Why defocus? This is very important! Its perfectly possible to
focus accurately. This means, using my camera, that the camera
resolves the individual color dots or rectangles. To get accurate color
rendition you then have to set the camera exposure so that the brightest
dots do not overload the sensor. This results in a VERY dark image!
So if you don't defocus the camera you have do the defocus
in Photoshop if you want the whole screen in one image 900 pixels
high or less so it can be posted on Videokarma. I have posted pics
of my CT-100 showing the dots clearly.

The Sony is two years old and is calibrated as best I can to about 6000K,
just using a test DVD. The Sony is identically calibrated at least
by intent.

Getting good pictures of color TVs is not easy! It is very much not a matter
of using auto settings on a camera!

Originally Posted by DaveWM (Post 3131062)

I liked the blues in the village scenes, they really were vibrant.
also the yellows on the marching soldiers were particularly good, I often have trouble getting those correct.

Originally Posted by etype2 (Post 3131071)

I feel it is just the opposite.
I try and make the room as dark as possible and then fill the image sensor with just the screen of the TV. Then the sensor is reading the light of the TV image only. I use auto settings and don't try and manipulate anything with Photoshop. Excuse me if I say this, but to me if you manipulate a photo, you are changing it up from what the camera sees. I read that you wanted to compensate because the color pixels seem to fool the camera.
.

Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald (Post 3131084)

One simply can't get away with full auto using a Canon 7D. The focus will
be pin sharp and the autoexposure will be correct on average, so that
the individual brightest color dots will be very highly overexposed. This
totally ruins the color. You absolutely must either defocus or
use manual exposure to way way underexpose.

Originally Posted by tvcollector (Post 3131055)

For the love of god, can someone please compare something that is more modern instead of always using a "Wizard of Oz" for a screen shot? I've seen so many screenshots of that movie, probably every frame of that damn movie.. The wizard of oz was redone in color back in the early days of color TV, so of course you're going to be able to compare roundie verses flatscreen a little easier.. Maybe something from the 2000s that's not cartoonish..

Originally Posted by tvcollector (Post 3131055)

The wizard of oz was redone in color back in the early days of color TV,

Originally Posted by Electronic M (Post 3131016)

... I don't like (makes my eyes tired) the flashing nature of image refresh in a flat screen (versus the soft fade of a CRT),