Quote:
Originally Posted by etype2
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.
|
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.
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.